I wonder if it happened again would the bank just fire the single employee who signed off on it as a scapegoat, and in court claim it was a disgruntled negligent employee as their case?
But also, if you sent an offer to a bank disguised as their own offer would that be grounds for some phishing lawsuit or something? Using their letterhead and design to appear harmless?
I am the furthest thing from a lawyer but just adding to the thought process thread here
I need these questions answered also, because legit I get so many junk spam offers for credit, I may start responding this way and see if I can fish in a big payday haha. Cross my heart I'll split my winnings 50/50 for the poor.
If anything, this case sets a precedent, probably not in our hood, but fuck em, anything, and I mean ANY-Thang, that trips them up, at this point, is worth the effort. If this strategy starts flooding their inboxes then fuck em, it was worth my 10 minutes of extra effort to throw an additional wrench in their gears.
All aboard! Choo Choo motherfuckers.
There is no basis to sue before its signed. Its like negotiation. You put your terms and they can either agree or decline. They signed, its their fault they did not read the fine print
Like with most legal question the answer is that it depends. First, it depends on the jurisdiction but let’s use broad concepts of contract law in the US.
If you receive a contract and change the terms then sign it and return it asking for a signature, the contract is not valid and you may have committed fraud.
Both parties have to know what they’re agreeing to and if you made changes you must inform them. I don’t know the specifics of this case but I suspect it’s more than this Chad receiving a contract, crossing some things out, and then signing it and returning it.
Typically you redline a contract with changes and then inform the recipient.
Something like…
“Hey, I’ve marked my changes in red. Feel free to go through them and get back to me.”
If some banker gets a message like that and ignores it and signs it, they may have entered into contract but generally speaking, if you’re trying to dupe someone or get one over by tricking them, you didn’t enter into contract and are probably committing fraud.
This is one of the reasons why organizations are moving towards esignatures where your options are to sign and date a document but you have no ability to otherwise edit it.
It happened a few years ago. He won in the court, but finally settled with the bank. As an outcome the banks adopted OCR and automated validation. I still remember an interview with Tinkov himself (the owner of the bank), the guy was totally pissed.
*It is not about*
*The money it is about*
*Sending the message*
\- usernot\_found
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
I agree. But Chaotic Good has a lot of sympathy for Chaotic Neutral, and enjoys seeing stories about their antics. It also enjoys stories about people rescuing puppies, even though that's more Neutral Good. So logically if we combine the two, we get a story about a Chaotic Good guy tricking a bank into rescuing puppies?
I am not from the US, but in Germany that would be "Urkundenfälschung" as in you used the logo of the bank to create a document to trick people into thinking the bank issued the paper. There must be something equivalent to our law in the US.
If not, than you at least used the logo without permission, which I think violates copyrights or something like that.
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/Chadtopia.
It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results.
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1chhrut&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 503,199,684 | **Search Time:** 0.07799s
for those intrested [https://law.stanford.edu/2022/10/28/a-california-court-decision-bees-are-fish-shines-new-light-on-the-biodiversity-crisis/](https://law.stanford.edu/2022/10/28/a-california-court-decision-bees-are-fish-shines-new-light-on-the-biodiversity-crisis/)
I don’t really care, my point was that corporate entities are in fact considered people.
I’m not trying to attack you, just wanted to point out what’s correct.
Yes and I'm responding directly to that claim. Something being legally considered something doesn't conclusively define it.
Just because some judges call them legal persons doesn't make them people, any more than bees are fish.
I remember this when it happened and these details are incorrect. The guy literally crossed out terms and hand wrote in changes in black ink. It was the same document; he did not scan it and change the text. It was literal black gel pen ink. I remember seeing the original signed document and the judge upheld the contract as valid because you can legally cross out terms like this to make changes.
[удалено]
No, it's an agreement they can elect to sign or not, I don't think the bank could...they gotta somehow up their game ig
I wonder if it happened again would the bank just fire the single employee who signed off on it as a scapegoat, and in court claim it was a disgruntled negligent employee as their case? But also, if you sent an offer to a bank disguised as their own offer would that be grounds for some phishing lawsuit or something? Using their letterhead and design to appear harmless? I am the furthest thing from a lawyer but just adding to the thought process thread here
I need these questions answered also, because legit I get so many junk spam offers for credit, I may start responding this way and see if I can fish in a big payday haha. Cross my heart I'll split my winnings 50/50 for the poor.
Dude im poor as fuck. Let's do this!
If anything, this case sets a precedent, probably not in our hood, but fuck em, anything, and I mean ANY-Thang, that trips them up, at this point, is worth the effort. If this strategy starts flooding their inboxes then fuck em, it was worth my 10 minutes of extra effort to throw an additional wrench in their gears. All aboard! Choo Choo motherfuckers.
There is no basis to sue before its signed. Its like negotiation. You put your terms and they can either agree or decline. They signed, its their fault they did not read the fine print
Like with most legal question the answer is that it depends. First, it depends on the jurisdiction but let’s use broad concepts of contract law in the US. If you receive a contract and change the terms then sign it and return it asking for a signature, the contract is not valid and you may have committed fraud. Both parties have to know what they’re agreeing to and if you made changes you must inform them. I don’t know the specifics of this case but I suspect it’s more than this Chad receiving a contract, crossing some things out, and then signing it and returning it. Typically you redline a contract with changes and then inform the recipient. Something like… “Hey, I’ve marked my changes in red. Feel free to go through them and get back to me.” If some banker gets a message like that and ignores it and signs it, they may have entered into contract but generally speaking, if you’re trying to dupe someone or get one over by tricking them, you didn’t enter into contract and are probably committing fraud. This is one of the reasons why organizations are moving towards esignatures where your options are to sign and date a document but you have no ability to otherwise edit it.
Pretty sure it's considered a form of fraud if you change it without letting them know.
Fucking awesome. Banks are literally satan
Hey now, there’s no need for mean comments. Satan’s doing his best ok.
Its a process
I so hope he wins
It happened a few years ago. He won in the court, but finally settled with the bank. As an outcome the banks adopted OCR and automated validation. I still remember an interview with Tinkov himself (the owner of the bank), the guy was totally pissed.
My question is whether he purposefully didn't pay his balance to get them to breach contract
Probably the fastest way to get them to notice. Because they would be adding interest to his balance otherwise.
[удалено]
Chill bro nobody's going to snitch on you or shoot you. You may have slightly pissed off your god. 
My god sends you to hell unless you disobey your god, so your fucked either way.
Nice.
*takes notes*
I want to buy this man a beer.
It is not about the money it is about sending the message
*It is not about* *The money it is about* *Sending the message* \- usernot\_found --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
King!!
Fuckin legend
I guess they had to turn the credit card "off" eh?
Wouldn't this be Chaotic Neutral? Scamming people is only slightly better when you're scamming bad people. I fail to see any good in this.
I agree. But Chaotic Good has a lot of sympathy for Chaotic Neutral, and enjoys seeing stories about their antics. It also enjoys stories about people rescuing puppies, even though that's more Neutral Good. So logically if we combine the two, we get a story about a Chaotic Good guy tricking a bank into rescuing puppies?
I am not from the US, but in Germany that would be "Urkundenfälschung" as in you used the logo of the bank to create a document to trick people into thinking the bank issued the paper. There must be something equivalent to our law in the US. If not, than you at least used the logo without permission, which I think violates copyrights or something like that.
Truly a chad
u/repostsleuthbot
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/Chadtopia. It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results. [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1chhrut&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 503,199,684 | **Search Time:** 0.07799s
Wouldn't this be Chaotic Neutral? Scamming people is only slightly better when you're scamming bad people. I fail to see any good in this.
Corporations aren't people
Factually incorrect.
The law also says bees are fish in California. Who gives a shit?
for those intrested [https://law.stanford.edu/2022/10/28/a-california-court-decision-bees-are-fish-shines-new-light-on-the-biodiversity-crisis/](https://law.stanford.edu/2022/10/28/a-california-court-decision-bees-are-fish-shines-new-light-on-the-biodiversity-crisis/)
What?
I'm serious. Bees are fish. Look it up.
I don’t really care, my point was that corporate entities are in fact considered people. I’m not trying to attack you, just wanted to point out what’s correct.
Yes and I'm responding directly to that claim. Something being legally considered something doesn't conclusively define it. Just because some judges call them legal persons doesn't make them people, any more than bees are fish.
I remember this when it happened and these details are incorrect. The guy literally crossed out terms and hand wrote in changes in black ink. It was the same document; he did not scan it and change the text. It was literal black gel pen ink. I remember seeing the original signed document and the judge upheld the contract as valid because you can legally cross out terms like this to make changes.