Hey xian, you really need this drlukacs on your side - he's an ace litigator and will get you back the potential $15k you lost due to your inability to hold back you tongue...
Actually, it was partially thanks to you. In 2012, BFL entered into a forward contract to provide future goods with Xian in exchange for capital upfront. This is a very common occurrence in agriculture for crops, fuel, equipement, seed, fertilizer, etc. It is also common in resource extraction industries like mining (how apropos). As you noted, these contracts increased dramatically in value since they were first purchased in 2012. You also noted that Xian should have been able to sell another forward contract for the delivery of his units to a third party for a healthy profit. BFL unilaterally terminated the contract, but they did not compensate Xian for market value, only the original face value. BFL then sold the rights to Xian's units to someone else for a higher return. The whole point of a forward contract is to obtain future goods at a fixed price. If the seller could unilaterally change the price at their whim, no forward contract would ever be worth entering. It should be quite trivial for Xian to obtain a remedy. The courts would probably not be involved unless BFL was unable to pay. It is possible I suppose, that BFL would fight it for pride's sake. I really can't see them winning. This is a clear case of breach of contract. |
|
|
|
I would be hesitant to characterize the sale as a "forward contract". I would be inclined to characterize it as a sale of future goods (emphasis added): Definitions--transferability--"goods"--"future" goods--"lot"--"commercial unit".400.2-105. (1) "Goods" means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (article  and things in action. "Goods" also includes the unborn young of animals and growing crops and other identified things attached to realty as described in the section on goods to be severed from realty (section 400.2-107). (2) Goods must be both existing and identified before any interest in them can pass. Goods which are not both existing and identified are "future" goods. A purported present sale of future goods or of any interest therein operates as a contract to sell. That is precisely what a "forward contract" is. It is a contract of sale between private parties for future goods at a fixed price. A "future contract" is a standardized forward contract offered by exchanges. More about them here: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/forwardsandfutures.aspForward contract or future contract is a term used in the context of investments/securities. The term used by UCC (which is what one wants to use before a judge) is a "contract for sale of future goods." A forward contract is precisely a "contract for sale of future goods." Xian bought a forward contract. Forward contracts need not specify an exact time in the future to be executed. The traditional measure of damages for a seller’s breach of contract is the difference between the market price and the contract price. The UCC retains this rule. A future contract is the security or investment you are referring to. Those are standardized forward contracts offered by licensed futures exchanges. They are marked to market daily and there are strict capital requirements that must be maintained. Moreover, the exchange is responsible for making sure there is no counterparty risk. Even if one party defaults on the future contract, the exchange makes the other party whole. |
|
|
|
To summarize the legal position of Xian:
The contract that Xian and BFL entered into was not a normal sale, nor was it a pre-order. Pre-orders involve either deposits or credit-card authorizations, but not the full amount (at least according to Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Ebay, Newegg, Best Buy, and Apple). If you order something that is not in stock, the online retailer will not charge your credit card until they ship the product. The contract entered into with BFL was called a foward sale.
An example of a forward sale is a farmer agreeing to sell soybeans a year from now to ADM for $540 a ton. Suppose that when the soybeans are finally ready the market price for soybeans is $800 a ton. The farmer is still obligated to sell them to ADM for $540. The farmer cannot legally unilaterally void the contract then refund the $540 to ADM and turn around and sell his soybeans to someone else for $800.
However, this is precisely what BFL did. They agreed to a contract to sell a specified amount of future units for a specified price. The market price of the contract rose five-fold. BFL then canceled the contract without compensating Xian for the fair market value. Finally, they turned around and sold the merchandise that Xian had rights to for more money to someone else (again via forward sale, but for a higher price than Xian paid).
Moreover, BFL does not support purchase of their products with credit cards. Why? For the simple reason that the credit card companies would not let them have pre-orders longer than 30 days, would not let them charge the full amount without delivery of product, and will come after them with lots of lawyers if they tried to do so.
The method of payment does not strike me as being particularly relevant to the issue of contract. It is if you are considering violating them. Credit card companies have agreements to protect their user base from "fraudulent" purchases. There is a very high level of built in protections for consumers who use credit cards to purchase. Mastercard and Visa explicitly disallow the sort of transactions BFL is engaging in. There is no way that BFL could maintain a merchant account with a CC company and engage in the sort of behavior they have been. BFL (by Jody's admission) has already come under pressure from Paypal to demonstrate their ability to ship any product. I would be hesitant to characterize the sale as a "forward contract". I would be inclined to characterize it as a sale of future goods (emphasis added): Definitions--transferability--"goods"--"future" goods--"lot"--"commercial unit".400.2-105. (1) "Goods" means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (article and things in action. "Goods" also includes the unborn young of animals and growing crops and other identified things attached to realty as described in the section on goods to be severed from realty (section 400.2-107). (2) Goods must be both existing and identified before any interest in them can pass. Goods which are not both existing and identified are "future" goods. A purported present sale of future goods or of any interest therein operates as a contract to sell. That is precisely what a "forward contract" is. It is a contract of sale between private parties for future goods at a fixed price. A "future contract" is a standardized forward contract offered by exchanges. More about them here: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/forwardsandfutures.asp |
|
|
|
An example of a forward sale is a farmer agreeing to sell soybeans a year from now to ADM for $540 a ton. Suppose that when the soybeans are finally ready the market price for soybeans is $800 a ton. The farmer is still obligated to sell them to ADM for $540. The farmer cannot legally unilaterally void the contract then refund the $540 to ADM and turn around and sell his soybeans to someone else for $800.
However, this is precisely what BFL did. They agreed to a contract to sell a specified amount of future units for a specified price. The market price of the contract rose five-fold. BFL then canceled the contract without compensating Xian for the fair market value. Finally, they turned around and sold the merchandise that Xian had rights to for more money to someone else (again via forward sale, but for a higher price than Xian paid).
Pretty good analogy, but cars are even better. Customer goes to a car dealership, picks the car he wants but it isn't in stock, so he's told it will be delivered in 2 months, and he pays the current price for the car in full at that point in time. 2 months pass, and the car he ordered is delivered to the dealership. The dealership sees that he can sell the same car to a new buyer for 67% more. So he calls up the original customer and says, sorry, I changed my mind, you can't have that car after all, because I'd rather sell it to someone else for more money. Here's your money back. This is the internet, and both cars and cats should be involved in analogies where ever possible. Unfortunately, car dealerships do not use future contracts for goods that I can discern. They take deposits to reserve the car. They are still subject to the same terms however, and there are a lot of consumer protection laws that call out specifically what car dealerships may do. Tesla for instance took a $5000 deposit on their model S cars before production began. |
|
|
|
To summarize the legal position of Xian:
The contract that Xian and BFL entered into was not a normal sale, nor was it a pre-order. Pre-orders involve either deposits or credit-card authorizations, but not the full amount (at least according to Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Ebay, Newegg, Best Buy, and Apple). If you order something that is not in stock, the online retailer will not charge your credit card until they ship the product. The contract entered into with BFL was called a foward sale.
An example of a forward sale is a farmer agreeing to sell soybeans a year from now to ADM for $540 a ton. Suppose that when the soybeans are finally ready the market price for soybeans is $800 a ton. The farmer is still obligated to sell them to ADM for $540. The farmer cannot legally unilaterally void the contract then refund the $540 to ADM and turn around and sell his soybeans to someone else for $800.
However, this is precisely what BFL did. They agreed to a contract to sell a specified amount of future units for a specified price. The market price of the contract rose five-fold. BFL then canceled the contract without compensating Xian for the fair market value. Finally, they turned around and sold the merchandise that Xian had rights to for more money to someone else (again via forward sale, but for a higher price than Xian paid).
Moreover, BFL does not support purchase of their products with credit cards. Why? For the simple reason that the credit card companies would not let them have pre-orders longer than 30 days, would not let them charge the full amount without delivery of product, and will come after them with lots of lawyers if they tried to do so.
Not sure how it used to be, but AFAIK they accept CC now. Could you please verify this by clicking order now on their products page, then proceed to checkout, and screenshot more than just Bitcoin, Paypal, and Bank Transfer as the methods of payment? A screenshot would be excellent. |
|
|
|
|
To summarize the legal position of Xian:
The contract that Xian and BFL entered into was not a normal sale, nor was it a pre-order. Pre-orders involve either deposits or credit-card authorizations, but not the full amount (at least according to Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Ebay, Newegg, Best Buy, and Apple). If you order something that is not in stock, the online retailer will not charge your credit card until they ship the product. The contract entered into with BFL was called a foward sale.
An example of a forward sale is a farmer agreeing to sell soybeans a year from now to ADM for $540 a ton. Suppose that when the soybeans are finally ready the market price for soybeans is $800 a ton. The farmer is still obligated to sell them to ADM for $540. The farmer cannot legally unilaterally void the contract then refund the $540 to ADM and turn around and sell his soybeans to someone else for $800.
However, this is precisely what BFL did. They agreed to a contract to sell a specified amount of future units for a specified price. The market price of the contract rose five-fold. BFL then canceled the contract without compensating Xian for the fair market value. Finally, they turned around and sold the merchandise that Xian had rights to for more money to someone else (again via forward sale, but for a higher price than Xian paid).
Moreover, BFL does not support purchase of their products with credit cards. Why? For the simple reason that the credit card companies would not let them have pre-orders longer than 30 days, would not let them charge the full amount without delivery of product, and will come after them with lots of lawyers if they tried to do so.
|
|
|
|
And like I just mentioned. Maybe everyone needs to get off their "I know everything about Avalon chips" high horse and realize that there may be more to the device that you realize. If you took off your scam glasses you'd see that he's mentioned that there are other components playing a part.
Dude, this isn't black magic. There isn't a mystical configuration where if you put chips X+Y+Z in a special order you get a performance upgrade. It's fucking Electrical Engineering, it's a science. Avalon chips are a known quantity, their performance is a known figure. When someone comes around asking for pre-order money based on the claim that he used Avalon chips to make a PCI-e miner that gets performance several orders of magnitude greater than the chips are capable of, it raises some red flags. Shit, raising red flags isn't even a strong enough statement, it just tells you that the person making such a claim is full of shit. In addition to that: This person has made wild claims such as having a group of engineers with 150 years experience designing this thing, but meanwhile describes basic principles about the technology incorrectly. This person provided 0 evidence that anything he is saying is true - proof of chip purchase, info on designs, CAD drawings, board specs, pictures of a prototype or construction etc. This person talks like a 14 year old raging while playing Call of Duty. The list could go on. And after all this mounting evidence that VPSguy is a scammer, you keep trying to claim he's a "legitimate business person". Do you see why everyone thinks you are a sock puppet? ^This. The quality of scams has really declined since Bitcoin was found by the mainstream media. It used to take weeks to unravel the hoaxes, now they fall apart half way through the opening post.  |
|
|
|
I'm hoping to find a discussion board that I can post on to get some more legal minded people involved. .and I can return with more opinions . . . .this forum (obviously) make it difficult to have an intelligent conversation about what the factual legal obligations of a company are. .. .like I said it's something that everybody who purchases mining products needs to know. . .
Are you finally dropping all pretense of the int30h account? Compare the following two posts, notice the bizarre use of periods and phraselets instead of sentences. Here the Endlessa account is upset and lapses into some very strange grammar and formatting. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2271520#msg2271520Here int30h is also upset and uses the same weird formatting and grammatical constructs: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2272747#msg227274780 of the last 83 posts by the Endlessa account are in this thread and in the last 24 hours. 58 of the last 58 posts (all of the non-newbie forum posts) by the int30h account are in this thread in the last 24 hours. When he gets agitated, his mask slips. Like when I was making fun of int30h and the Endlessa account responded with the int30h style of insults to the taunting. OOPS. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2271207#msg2271207http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorderNope I am still here. Waiting for that bet to be clarified. Thanks for helping Xian get his money back. We wouldn't have found it without you. Clear enough? |
|
|
|
Good. The point of this thread is largely complete.
1) Xian now has the ability to recover the current market value of an early BFL order
2) Xian also now has the relevant sections of UCC & Missouri Consumer Protection Act to go after BFL both in Missouri and the state in which Xian lives.
3) You have been outed as an astro-turfing account trying to deflect any legal discussion and derail the thread. This might signify that someone really hit a nerve over at BFL.
While I agree with items 1 and 2, with due respect, I disagree with item 3, because such comments do not assist members of the community. Really? You don't care if people lie? Or if they create alternate identities to attack you? The perverse part of it is, if Endlessa/int30h had just kept quiet, Xian probably would not have discovered the means by which he could extract $20,000 from BFL. |
|
|
|
Are you finally dropping all pretense of the int30h account?
Compare the following two posts, notice the bizarre use of periods and phraselets instead of sentences.
Why does it matter whether there is one or two username? What matters is the state of the law as to the obligations of sellers and buyers. It appears that we did find some answers to those questions, and these answers were accepted by your nemesis. What is the point then in arguing about usernames and identities...? I was beginning to wonder if you had me on ignore. You certainly ignored the UCC section I posted about the difference between a forward sale contract and normal sale contract. Why would someone create an alternate account to derail/deflect a thread about the legal remedies Xian has at his disposal? He put over 160 posts into this thead and no other over the last 24 hours. He has enough interest to astro-turf, why and what is that interest? |
|
|
|
I'm hoping to find a discussion board that I can post on to get some more legal minded people involved. .and I can return with more opinions . . . .this forum (obviously) make it difficult to have an intelligent conversation about what the factual legal obligations of a company are. .. .like I said it's something that everybody who purchases mining products needs to know. . .
Are you finally dropping all pretense of the int30h account? Compare the following two posts, notice the bizarre use of periods and phraselets instead of sentences. Here the Endlessa account is upset and lapses into some very strange grammar and formatting. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2271520#msg2271520Here int30h is also upset and uses the same weird formatting and grammatical constructs: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2272747#msg227274780 of the last 83 posts by the Endlessa account are in this thread and in the last 24 hours. 58 of the last 58 posts (all of the non-newbie forum posts) by the int30h account are in this thread in the last 24 hours. When he gets agitated, his mask slips. Like when I was making fun of int30h and the Endlessa account responded with the int30h style of insults to the taunting. OOPS. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2271207#msg2271207http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorderNo I'm not him. . .but I'm am bored with you Good. The point of this thread is largely complete. 1) Xian now has the ability to recover the current market value of an early BFL order 2) Xian also now has the relevant sections of UCC & Missouri Consumer Protection Act to go after BFL both in Missouri and the state in which Xian lives. 3) You have been outed as an astro-turfing account trying to deflect any legal discussion and derail the thread. This might signify that someone really hit a nerve over at BFL. You may continue to post of course, but you have been digging a very deep hole for yourself over the last day. Welcome to the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder |
|
|
|
I'm hoping to find a discussion board that I can post on to get some more legal minded people involved. .and I can return with more opinions . . . .this forum (obviously) make it difficult to have an intelligent conversation about what the factual legal obligations of a company are. .. .like I said it's something that everybody who purchases mining products needs to know. . .
Are you finally dropping all pretense of the int30h account? Compare the following two posts, notice the bizarre use of periods and phraselets instead of sentences. Here the Endlessa account is upset and lapses into some very strange grammar and formatting. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2271520#msg2271520Here int30h is also upset and uses the same weird formatting and grammatical constructs: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2272747#msg227274780 of the last 83 posts by the Endlessa account are in this thread and in the last 24 hours. 58 of the last 58 posts (all of the non-newbie forum posts) by the int30h account are in this thread in the last 24 hours. When he gets agitated, his mask slips. Like when I was making fun of int30h and the Endlessa account responded with the int30h style of insults to the taunting. OOPS. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.msg2271207#msg2271207http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder |
|
|
|
"wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates" they did not "fail to deliver" or "wrongfully repudiate"
He was aware that the delivery date was not set in stone. . . .and he received his refund (so was not repudiated). so this section would be difficult to apply in my mind. Again not a lawyer, but I fail to see where this applicable.
so now take a look at this (as I previously posted):
400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.
These refers to lease, not to contract of sale. See the definitions here: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0103.HTMYou should check the laws on unwinding forward/futures contracts. Show me a contract. Oh . .wait .. there isn't one. When you post twice, I post twice. Enjoy!  Hello Mr Obvious Sockpuppet is Obvious. Next time you try to astro-turf you should remember to stay calm. When you get angry you make mistakes. Now that BFL can't cancel orders without destroying themselves, what is their plan for silencing criticism? Oh, and ROFL at your "lease section" of the UCC. Master of business you must be! I never said I was completely correct, in fact, encouraged you to point out where I was wrong or looking into the wrong part of the code. I actually appreciate drlukacs intelligent contributions. .. . . so now instead of asshattery, I'm going to go read and try to figure out how all of it applies to the current situation. I am actually interested in this. . . I posted the relevant sections. Fraud as defined by the Missouri Consumer Protection Act & failure to live up to a forward sale contract. You switched to insulting me and accused me of redirecting and when I insulted your int30h account (who adds no value to the thread, you should drop him as an alias). 165 posts all by you in the same thread all in 2 days? We really must have struck a nerve. |
|
|
|
"wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates" they did not "fail to deliver" or "wrongfully repudiate"
He was aware that the delivery date was not set in stone. . . .and he received his refund (so was not repudiated). so this section would be difficult to apply in my mind. Again not a lawyer, but I fail to see where this applicable.
so now take a look at this (as I previously posted):
400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.
These refers to lease, not to contract of sale. See the definitions here: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0103.HTMYou should check the laws on unwinding forward/futures contracts. Show me a contract. Oh . .wait .. there isn't one. When you post twice, I post twice. Enjoy! Hello Mr Obvious Sockpuppet is Obvious. Next time you try to astro-turf you should remember to stay calm. When you get angry you make mistakes. Now that BFL can't cancel orders without destroying themselves, what is their plan for silencing criticism? Oh, and ROFL at your "lease section" of the UCC. Master of business you must be! |
|
|
|
"wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates" they did not "fail to deliver" or "wrongfully repudiate"
He was aware that the delivery date was not set in stone. . . .and he received his refund (so was not repudiated). so this section would be difficult to apply in my mind. Again not a lawyer, but I fail to see where this applicable.
so now take a look at this (as I previously posted):
400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.
These refers to lease, not to contract of sale. See the definitions here: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0103.HTMYou should check the laws on unwinding forward/futures contracts. |
|
|
|
Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious.
Some quality argumentative skills being displayed right there. Not my fault he used the int30h account and then got confused about which one he was logged in as. He didn't even last a day. I am here. Waiting for the terms of the bet . Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it. I have an account and I am sticking to it.. I am still waiting for the terms of your bet... Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it. Are you going to keep repeating the same thing over and over ? Thats hilarious. When you post as Endlessa, I change one word to int30h. When you post as int30h, I change it to Endlessa. You can drop the pretense. Also thank you for bringing the UCC to our attention, we never would have tumbled to the forward contract provisions had it not been for your aggressive redirecting. So BFL will get a two pronged attack, one for fraudulent business practices and one for unilaterally cancelling a forward contract that they did not want to pay off. And how can we forget: Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it. Ya ok, it's crazy that two people can observe your constantly changing point and the circle jerk you continually exhibit. You should apply for a nobel, as your skills in deduction are not even rivaled by Sherlock Holmes. I can pay a lawyer to do anything, doesn't mean he will win and it certainly won't stop the lawyer from taking my money. Ok, since your just exercising your FUD creation skills, I don't think there is any form of point or substance in your conversation. I did actually enjoy our conversation on UCC, but now your just being boring and childish. Hello Mr Obvious Sockpuppet is Obvious. Next time you try to astro-turf you should remember to stay calm. When you get angry you make mistakes. Now that BFL can't cancel orders without destroying themselves, what is their plan for silencing criticism? Oh, and ROFL at your "lease section" of the UCC. Master of business you must be!  |
|
|
|
"wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates" they did not "fail to deliver" or "wrongfully repudiate"
He was aware that the delivery date was not set in stone. . . .and he received his refund (so was not repudiated). so this section would be difficult to apply in my mind. Again not a lawyer, but I fail to see where this applicable.
so now take a look at this (as I previously posted):
400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.
These refers to lease, not to contract of sale. See the definitions here: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0103.HTMYep. I tried to tell him that was not the relevant statute. But he blew his stack before anything could come of it. |
|
|
|
Any of you ever consider that the level of transparency from the OP is a good thing? If he openly shares who he is wouldn't that show some commitment to legitimacy? Just a thought. I'm looking forward to you "hero" folks eatting your words. Nice to see people here are so consumed with anger and paranoia that they can't see straight. Get some fresh air. Espessially you smoothie.
Somebody else posted his contact and account info. Someone else posted his contact information that is all easily found public information. Search his name or whois his website. His information is there for all to see. Sorry, I happen to own a physics book. Whois won't hell the OP break the laws of physics. And like I just mentioned. Maybe everyone needs to get off their "I know everything about Avalon chips" high horse and realize that there may be more to the device that you realize. If you took off your scam glasses you'd see that he's mentioned that there are other components playing a part. Are the other parts cold fusion and lead to gold alchemy? Or is there more creativity involved? |
|
|
|
§ 2-105. Definitions: Transferability; "Future" Goods; "Lot"; "Commercial Unit". (1) Goods must be both existing and identified before any interest in them may pass. Goods that are not both existing and identified are "future" goods. A purported present sale of future goods or of any interest therein operates as a contract to sell. One party cannot simply cancel a forward contract because they don't want to pay anymore. |
|
|
|
Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious.
Some quality argumentative skills being displayed right there. Not my fault he used the int30h account and then got confused about which one he was logged in as. He didn't even last a day. I am here. Waiting for the terms of the bet . Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it. I have an account and I am sticking to it.. I am still waiting for the terms of your bet... Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it. Are you going to keep repeating the same thing over and over ? Thats hilarious. When you post as Endlessa, I change one word to int30h. When you post as int30h, I change it to Endlessa. You can drop the pretense. Also thank you for bringing the UCC to our attention, we never would have tumbled to the forward contract provisions had it not been for your aggressive redirecting. So BFL will get a two pronged attack, one for fraudulent business practices and one for unilaterally cancelling a forward contract that they did not want to pay off. And how can we forget: Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not Endlessa if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. You should probably pick one account and stick with it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
