- In August, a judge in Voronezh, Russia, accepted for trial Dmitry Argarkov's lawsuit against Tinkoff Credit Systems for violating a credit-card contract. Tinkoff had mailed Argarkov its standard fine-print contract, but Argarkov computer-scanned it, changed pro-Tinkoff provisions into pro-Argarkov terms, and signed and returned it, and Tinkoff accepted it without re-reading. At least at this stage of the lawsuit, the judge appeared to say that Argarkov had bested Tinkoff at its own game of oppressive, fine-print mumbo-jumbo. [Kommersant (Moscow) via Daily Telegraph (London), 8-8-2013]

fine print is not liable at a cash register (print on receipt aside)

it's not in good faith for small print to change yet you don't knwo if the complaining party knew of it.

obviously, he argues the change was unreasonable.

however in intl. comm. law "reasonable change" is tested as to whether it really was, using categories and such. why is: the small print might say "and must do it for lifetime", in which case the court would rule that no reasonable person should or legally can sign such a thing

------------------------
international commercial law is old and very long in tooth

it's simple: contracts are in good faith where not spelled out, it's assumed both parties act in good faith to complete. agreeing to an impossible contract that is sure to harm, is illegal.

the rest is just catagorizing. prove i'm wrong.

the issue with commercial law, thought simple, is:

jurisdiction and guarantee a jurisdiction will do the law, especially across international borders

one should probably assume no, unless they know otherwise