He mailed the form back along with his modifications (0% APR, huge fines for the banks changing things, other fun caveats) and ran up a modest tab.
When the bank sued him to get payment he fought back AND WON.
Man Tries To Beat Bank At Its Own Game With Fine Print That Gives Him Unlimited Credit – Consumerist
RT News has the story of a man who looked at an unsolicited credit card offer from Tinkoff Credit Systems back in 2008 and wondered what would happen if he signed the agreement, but only after writing in his own additional terms by hand.
Among the amendments in his version of the contract — unlimited credit, 0% APR, no fees, including the stipulation that he “is not obliged to pay any fees and charges imposed by bank tariffs.” Since the contract included a URL for a web page containing the full terms of service, the customer also wrote in a new URL of his own so that the bank couldn’t just say “but these terms are different than what’s published on the site.”
Per the amended terms, every change to these terms would result in a payment of 3 million rubles ($91,000) to the customer, or a cancelation fee of 6 million rubles ($182,000).
A pretty sweet deal. No way Tinkoff would agree to it.
But of course Tinkoff did agree to it, because it did exactly what most of its customers do — accepted this contract without reading it.
“The opened credit line was unlimited,” said the man’s lawyer. “He could afford to buy an island somewhere in Malaysia, and the bank would have to pay for it by law.”
He didn’t buy that island, but he did use the card for two years, racking up only $1,363 (including interest and fees) during that time. Not bad, considering the sweetheart deal he’d written for himself. But of course he wasn’t paying that amount because he maintained that he had a 0% APR and could theoretically just keep making charges on the sheer promise that he’d pay up someday.
And so Tinkoff sued the customer. However, the court held that his amendments were binding since the bank accepted them, whether it looked at them or not. The court said the customer only owed the principal balance of around $575.