Hacker News Reader

Comment by eksith | Hacker News Reader

That's an interesting point.

We take credit card/bank card forms for granted in that nothing is returned to you except another copy of the same (hopefully) agreement, the card and monthly statement. Not the copy of the document you signed with their corresponding signature.

I wonder if this case will prompt some changes in the way they conduct their card affairs.

View on HN

We take credit card/bank card forms for granted in that nothing is returned to you except another copy of the same (hopefully) agreement

Really? I'm surprised by that. In recent years I've only signed new bank paperwork as a company director, but in all cases where that happened in real time in a branch, I've asked that they make a photocopy of exactly what I signed for me to keep for my company's records. They have always done so immediately, without objection, and without the signed version leaving my sight.

Of course the discussion here has made be a bit curious, I wonder if you could "sign up banks" instead of having them sign up you. Lets say you mail a bank your preferred credit card contract to the bank, which basically said "by sending me a card you agree to the terms of this contract." and then layout the card contract you would be willing to accept. I wonder what the conversion rate would be. I'm guessing 0 but without evidence that is just a guess. Might be fun to run the experiment.

Do they still send cards in the mail? It would be interesting to see if something they sent as an unrelated advertisement would be covered by your contract if you can prove they received the contract and the card was mailed after.

This could be a whole new era of spam prevention, by being personally as full of it as every EULA. Just send out contracts, "by contacting me in any way you agree to the following...". Companies would be terrified to send anything at all to anyone.

Round here (ZA) its fairly common to see a party having a copy of the contract signed only by the counterparty. i.e. Each party ends up with a contract signed by the counter party. Technically that makes neither copy a valid contract, but - close enough I guess.

Here too. And has its sense. You have the proof the other party agreed the contract. I do not need to sign to demostrate I am too. My word right now is sufficient.

This reminds me of the diplomatic practices of ancient mesopotamia -- when an agreement between two city-kings was finalized, each king got a master tablet listing half the agreement -- all of his own obligations. At no point did a symmetrical tablet listing every clause of the agreement ever exist.

Depends on what a contract is. In most law systems the contract is not the piece of paper it's written on.

Fair enough. Now that I think about it, the half signed contract will likely stick but its going to be one hell of a day in court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com