The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Show => Topic started by: Temper on August 13, 2013, 03:05:17 AM
-
You really don't think it is fair for someone to modify a contract sent from a bank to negotiate better terms?
In reference to: http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/editors-pick/articles/A-Russian-Bank-Is-Sued-for/8/7/2013/id/51205 (http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/editors-pick/articles/A-Russian-Bank-Is-Sued-for/8/7/2013/id/51205) and your comments at the end of FTL on 08/12/2013...
What did you say? Something along the lines of they don't have to provide that level of service as to negotiate a contract?
Well I am just one person and I get about 15 pieces of mail a day. That's like.. umm.. 5475 pieces of mail a year. I have to sort all that, respond when "demanded", etc etc. I think that is a lot. At an average of just 30 seconds per piece to "handle" thats 45.6 hours per year.
To pretend that a company, in this case a bank, doesn't have to honor the principles that in a contract:
1) Both parties are equal
2) Both parties have to agree willingly
3) Both parties have the power to negotiate to get a better deal
For someone that seems to be for a free state, or what not, it seemed like you were saying that people are subordinate to corporations. I think that is nonsense. If ANYONE has the ability to READ every contract the get returned it is a corporation or bank.
Can I post and get some website or something that has my "standard contractual terms" and then enforce them!? I doubt it. If people could do that, as corporations seem to be able to, they probably all would.
No if I am expected to read everything and handle all my affairs, then a bank or corporation should too.
Anyways, just my opinion - feel free to blast me for it. 8)
-
You make some fine points. I think I said that it was "dirty pool". Anyway, your points will be best made and heard on air. 855-450-3733.
-
Temper,
I think Mark's statement was completely accurate.
Accepting that; "3) Both parties have the power to negotiate to get a better deal" - neither party is obligated to accept the terms proposed by the other party.
If I were to send out abusive contract offers in bulk, I don't have the power to compel anyone to accept the offered terms just as nobody has the power to compel me to offer terms which are more in their interest - they can ask, but that's it.
In this case the guy essentially committed fraud by changing the terms of the contract in a relatively covert manner, he accepted an offer that wasn't made - he assumed they wouldn't check and his manipulation would go unnoticed, and he was right.
If the company had done their due-diligence and read every signed and returned contract offer, they should have caught it, but they apparently processed their accepted contract offers in bulk, without equal knowledge or informed assent.
I think it's funny - it serves them right, but it doesn't mean the guy didn't act in bad faith. Acting in bad faith just because the other party does, doesn't make it right...it just makes it epic.