blackspartacus:

lfeellike:

allthingshyper:

st-just:

Hero.

If you look up power move in the dictionary, you get this story

god bless this man

There’s a Reddit Thread on this exact article that addresses the legality of this contract.

Here’s a snippet from that thread (written by Reddit user Valderan_CA) on why this won’t stand in court:

First there must be the mutual consent of both parties. No one can be held to a promise involuntarily made. When consent is given by error, under physical or moral duress, or as a result of fraudulent practises, the contract may be declared null and void at the request of the aggrieved party

So because he purposely hid his contractual changes/a reasonable person would expect the returned contract to not be amended from the boilerplate contract the contract could easily be voided on the basis that the bank consented to the contract in error. This IS A VALID EXCUSE IN ENGLISH CONTRACT LAW.

HOWEVER, even if you somehow decided that the bank should have known about the changes to the contract and wouldn’t void it on those terms, there is a second reason why this contract would be void in countries following english contract law.

In common law it is a prerequisite that both parties offer consideration before a contract can be thought of as binding. The doctrine of consideration is irrelevant in many jurisdictions, although contemporary commercial litigant relations have held the relationship between a promise and a deed is a reflection of the nature of contractual considerations. If there is no element of consideration found, there is thus no contract formed.

Note – American law ALSO requires consideration to be considered valid. In this particular case I would expect the bank could easily argue that the modified contract provided no consideration on the part of the guy who modified it. Basically he offered nothing on his part in exchange for what the bank was offering him (a credit card with an unlimited credit limit) since he changed the terms to say the bank would charge no interest on his purchases (which would generally be considered the consideration for a normal credit card contract).

This is a BASIC and IMPORTANT component to contract law – you cannot sign a contract where one party receives something of value and the other party receives nothing, any contract of this sort is AUTOMATICALLY invalid.

The court essentially agreed with this given their ruling – the guy had to pay back the money he spent on the card (but no interest) and the card is cancelled (I.E. the contract was made null and void, since the guy had taken money from the bank he had to pay that back)

(Reddit)

I personally recommend reading more about contract law before imitating this guy’s actions. If y’all wanna hack the system, be smart about it.