He signed, sent both copies, got his bank signed copy back
Went yo the bank, the bank sued him, he won (the judge told the bank that when you play dirty games you sometimes loose) and they ultimately settled.
I can never find an article that mentions the final outcome.
> The legal action was later withdrawn by both the parties after an undisclosed settlement was reached.
That wouldn't work in the U.S. Changes to material terms in a contract generally informed consent (meaning, that the modifications are actually disclosed to the counterparty before they sign) or specific consent (such as a initializing the sections of the contract where the modifications occur). This is a basic part of the UCC, which all states have adopted in some form.
There are a lot of people on the internet claiming that you can get away with surreptitious material changes to a contract before it is signed. None of them are lawyers.
I never heard of a corporation being forced to point out explicitly which lines in their long terms and conditions document have changed. But it's a well known obligation for regular citizens, because material terms.
> that the modifications are actually disclosed to the counterparty before they sign
Does Microsoft explicitly draw your attention to the fact that Copilot is for entertainment purposes? No, it buries that in a long document hoping you won't see it, and advertises it as the complete opposite, but it's ok when they do it, because those are not material terms, whatever that means. It means it's ok when the big guys do it, in the end.
When corporations do it (i.e. change TOS) they need to send you notice of the new terms because it's no longer a change, it's a new contract that replaces the old one...if you agree to it by continuing to usetheir service after notice.
Why did he need to highlight some terms? How do you mean "change the nature of the agreement", change from what? They didn't have an agreement before this.
> because it's no longer a change, it's a new contract that replaces the old one
What sophistry is this? Of course it's a change. Most of the contract is the same, it's not like Paypal changes it's business to selling shoes. They do the same things, and the terms are mostly the same, only they make some changes. There's nothing supporting your claim that it's a new contract.
> things like price, term, or anything that would change the nature of the overall agreement
That's everything in the contract. Which parts of the contract don't affect the nature of the contract? Why are they there? What the hell is "the overall nature"? If a fee for something changes from $1 to $2, as I understand the english language, "the overall nature" of the contract doesn't change. Just a fee. It's a detail. But this is exactly what you list as "material terms".
It's all BS.
He changed the material terms of the contract so the other parties‘ obligations and rights were substantially different than what they had thought they were in the original version. In the U.S. his actions would have resulted in him being bound by the contract but the other party not being bound.
Doubling the price of a contract is a material term. Basically anything that would make someone change their mind about entering into the contract is material, but price and term are always material by law.
Stuff that isn't normally negotiated isn't material, like jurisdiction for disputes.