The plaintiff can argue based on breach of contract .in that, by considerably varying the terms and conditions of the agreement devoid of the plaintiffs' consent, the defendant breached the Retail Instalment Credit Agreement. Plaintiffs could contend that the Retail Instalment Credit Agreement involved both plaintiffs and defendants, of which the notice was an effort to transform the agreement. The reason being there was no substantial consideration for the apparent modification since Citibank did not assure doing something additional than they were obligated to do in the initial contract. In addition, the exploit of "free" in the account of the insurance was a deceiving exercise, as defendants efficiently cost the plaintiffs money for two months of insurance coverage. In addition, they can argue that the amendment stipulation within the credit contract has no legal consequence since it roots for the contract being vague.
The Defendants can argue that they had no compulsion to restore the cards of those who declined to pay the augmented yearly charge after their expiration dates. Neither can they be obligated to commit, in the notice, towards creating either credit or ordinary carrier insurance obtainable, at the instance for restoration, to those who declined to accept their suggested alteration to the credit contract. Therefore, by failing to declare that the insurance was still obtainable at the yearly renewal interlude was not a deceptive practice (). Nor was it an infringement of Illinois consumer fraud law. Equally, Citibank was not obligated to notify the plaintiffs of the charge and degree of coverage obtainable from other insurers or with other credit cards. As seen in Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Russell F (1969).