I would be surprised if it did not work out well in the USA, to be perfectly honest. There is nothing illegal in the extra terms he added to the contract, and the bank is not in any position to claim that it failed to read the contract. More likely, however, is that the news of this case has led every bank on the planet to institute a "check all paperwork" policy to prevent this from happening.

I can't see a bank in the US accepting (and signing) an altered contract. It would have to happen by an accident.

They would then find it worthwhile to spend $7 million in legal fees to avoid the $700K cost, just to have precedent for the next person that tried it.

because what the world needs, is a slower banking process.

Perhaps it will give an incentive for banks to write shorter contracts. Also, it could probably be automated with OCR software.

I would rather say: no paper contracts and use digital cryptographic signatures everywhere.

I'd be fine with a slow banking process that exclusively involves junk mail offers.

That's actually is easily fixable. He changed the link to bank's website where copy of the contract's text located. So all "bank people" need to do is to check the link isn't altered. Or ad some other form of text sealing like "The text of this contract includes 2132 words, 4543 letters 'a' ..." and check for that seal only.

The man sent his changes to the contract to the bank, and they signed and certified that agreement.

So what does it say about the rule of law in Russia?

I think parent meant that if the man wins the case, it would be a sign that rule of law is indeed strong in Russia (not the opposite).

Exactly my intent. And that somehow I don't think he could pull this off here.

Edit: Here = America

That says that Russian laws are fair - there's no difference between big companies and regular people. No one is protected. If a bank's client can sign a contract presented by the bank and be responsible to follow the rules in the contract the same should apply the other way around. Bank signed a contract without reading its contents and is required to follow what is written in the contract.

Contract is an agreement between two or more parties. You agree to the terms presented in the contract with your signature. Any law written in a way which protects companies is wrong. There should be no difference between a contract written by John Doe and a contract written by any company.

He already won the first case, so it already worked to some degree.

Let's see if he gets his cash. :-)

This is just a man against just a bank, why do you expect rule of law to be the issue here?

The nature of corruption in Russia is not about that rich easily buy justice to win over poor, or that big companies are preferred over individuals, though that issues exist too, it's about those closer to Putin living by different law than regular people, but I don't see anyone like that involved.