I don't typically have my lawyer review the TOS of each website I sign up for, but I did have him review my mortgage. Everyone picks a different place to draw the line between careful understanding (or hiring out a review from someone with careful understanding), and just blindly signing on the dotted line.
For me that is somewhere between purchasing a tractor and purchasing a house. The point is the no sane person includes Netflix in the "needs careful review" category, but I sincerely recommend that everyone take their home purchases seriously.
A friend of a friend changed the “we will send you advertising” into “we will not send you advertising”, then when the bank sent them advertising anyway they demonstrated that the bank manager had signed the changed document and therefore the bank was in breach of the mortgage contract and technically they could keep the house without paying for it.
For whatever reason, they then said it would be fine if the bank never sent them more advertising rather than actually trying to get a free house.
For a slightly more reliable story, Argakov v Tinkoff seems fun. At least the first round, the reports I’ve seen are a bit dated and further escalation and retaliation may be less fun.
Pity there wasn't a free house but I shouldn't be surprised. Thank you for sharing both stories.
That Argakov one is particularly spooky with the viable death fear. From the first hit I could find: “Our lawyers don’t think [Agarkov] will get 24 million rubles, but four years in prison for fraud. Now it’s a matter of principle for @tcsbank,” Tinkov added. ( from https://www.rt.com/business/tinkoff-bank-agarkov-credit-299/ )(empasis mine)
Oh boy. When the fight become principled it's time to fire the client xxxxx refer the client out to someone else
I’d like mortgages etc. (and insurance) to be forced to use easy-to-understand language: It’s basically life changing if a financial instrument goes wrong.
