Customers are always cautioned to read the fine print. I would not know why this would not be valid advice for banks (or any other business) as well.
"Alexeev then sent his updated agreement to the bank, and shortly thereafter received the bank's signed and certified copy, as well as a credit card."
It's been a while since I signed up for a new credit card, but I don't recall getting back anything "signed and certified." Terms and what-not, sure, but that sounds like the bank sent back his (updated) contract.
Apparently, I've gotten more houses than credit cards, because that's exactly how you handle contract negotiations there.
I don't think a bank will want to go down the line of arguing the contract shouldn't be binding because they shouldn't have to read the small print - that sounds like an overall loss for the bank in general.
That's like I would initiate a contract with you and after we read it together and you agree it's what you want to sign I covertly slip a page into the pack that completely changes the terms and trick you into signing it without you actually knowing it's there. You can reasonably claim you intended to sign the original one, not the one I secretly modified - and I expect the court be more sympathetic to you than to my claims "you should have watched my hands all the time!" Of course, it'd require you proving that I did this, but if you can, your case sounds pretty strong to me.
Doesn't this case show that they cannot reasonably expect the contract to be identical to what they sent, in respect to all future contracts?
1 - The bank signed a copy then gave one to the customer to sign. If the customer changed the print at this point, it would no longer be valid.
2 - What this guy did, the bank gave him a copy, he modified it, then signed it, then sent it back, to which the bank approved. Which is still technically valid.
Your contact probably has aterm about them being allowed to change the contact and probably not even notifying you.
Will it work? It's hard to say. Courts are generally skeptical of the excuse that "I didn't read the contract."
Perhaps it comes down to this: Does a party who makes proposed edits have any obligation to point out such edits? Or does the responsibility lie wholly with each party to read the contract in its final form?
Good lucky going to court sayingthat you only read the credit card brochure so you thought you didn't have to read the contact before signing... Whichis exactly what the bank did.
If the bank get out of this one, and Russian contract law is the same, it will be going over all the precedence to this date.
My bet is that neither side will have it all. Contact will be upheld, but values will be ruled out of some legal common sense.