Update. This is an e-mail chain with dozens of recipients, I'm pretty sure including others here... who are probably reading their e-mail and palming their face right now.  

MacDonald seems to confirm the person's question.  Basically, since Hashfast isn't delivering many units, current customers will be screwed because "this will not in any way change the rate at which existing HashFast customers receive their units".

Cognitive meanwhile makes "a few thousand" and sells them, while Hashfast continues to ship a board or two every once in a while.

You legally focused folks, I think your lawyers might want to take note of this one.




On 19/03/2014 17:49, Garrett MacDonald wrote:>

> [Person's Name]:
>
> I apologize for the vagueness, I cannot reveal the exact numbers. The
> main thing to note is that this will not in any way change the rate at
> which existing HashFast customers receive their units, until after our
> agreement is fulfilled, then it will expedite the rate at which existing
> customers receive units. This is a win-win all over.
>
> Best,
> Garrett
>
> On 3/19/14, 4:35 PM, [Person] wrote:
>> Mr. MacDonald:
>>
>> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you have entered into
>> an agreement with Hashfast that will result in production and sale by
>> Cognitive of a "few thousand" Hashfast boards before Hashfast's
>> outstanding orders are filled?
>>
>> [Person]
>>

For anybody thinking that this is just another worthless troll post from yours truly, go fuck your father in his ass, then go play with your momma's worthless tits, then go suck-off your neighbor's dog's cock!

By the End of march if these people have not delivered anything to any of US that has purchase a 1.2 machine ..

Who wants to find these pricks if this does not happen ? I will find them in bulgaria in china where ever the fuck there at ..

I'll plan a trip for April 6 if the the case who ever wants to join me Pm me

I will find where ever the fuck there at . I'll set up a team of people to hunt these peaces of shits down if they steal my motha fucking money .

What are the rules for refunds? I remember they promised a full refund + 10%

http://bitmine.ch/?page_id=850


is that 10% per week they are late too with their refund?

By the way the CPP does not mention any 50% cap on the more hashing power

Wrong
I was watching  bASIC thread closely. As long as i can say bASIC lost a lot of money but they did not lie for more than a week of delays and after that little by little they have refunded 100% of money taken. I do not have comments about HF, BUT I DO COMPLETELY AGREE that AMT !EQUALS BFL

expensive for may shipping 

I doubt it.  You'll recall that Bitmine offered a choice of a reservation queue and a preorder queue.  I always assumed they did it that way because they expected that only very few people would want to preorder.

In the end, though, the community chose to preorders pretty much their entire production for several months, and the reservation queue became essentially pointless.

Fun Facts:

Number of butthurt people who wanted refunds from BFL for 1+ year delays: 10,000

Number of people who took legal action against BFL for the delays and won: 0

Number of those butthurt people who actually lost money (in terms of USD): 0

Yup, that's the first half. Here's the other half:

http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus02-business-guide-mail-and-telephone-order-merchandise-rule

Their prospero X1 price is a bit high $997 AUD how do they work that out?

ASIC scrypt miner? how would that work? It is my understanding that scrypt mining isn't really doable on an ASIC. Something about ASICs not having any memory.

Had yesterday a talk with a guy visited bitmine. He said, that they cant start shipping due to problems in production. In a short summary it means, there is a huge delay. There are thousends of orders and in the end its going to be a much huger mess as it was with bfl.

At the end of february some hundreads pieces can be made, probably in best case.

march orders can not be made up before july or august.

Eat it or not. But DONT scream around like pragnant female dogs.

Sounds like they do need to clarify some things. (Besides fixing the wrong info on the "additional info" tab, still. )

1: Payment policy (Outlining approved payment methods, and limitations. Such as, "all sales are final", and a contractual agreement to the following #1, #2, #3 and #4 policies.)
2: Refund policy (Outlining the fact that a "pre-order" is a "build to suit", and has limited refund ability.)
3: Order policy (Identifying all "pre-orders", as a "build to suit", product. With any associated risks.)
4: Shipping policy (Identifying "ship dates", of the "pre-orders", which are "build to suit", products, as unencumbered shipping estimates. With links to any public announced NEWS of encumbrance to delays.)

P.S. This exact reason is why you can't buy stocks with CC's and paypal. You buy it, you own it. Period! You purchased a BTC coin maker. BTC is a high-risk market, and so is any associated joint-products. This has been known as common knowledge for the past six years. This is not a "standard consumer sale", these are all "high-risk investments". No matter how consumer-like it ever seems to be portrayed. Even BestBuy sells BFL without a refund, unless there is "good reason". (Like hardware failure.)

So he should be suing for less. Only 200-300 grand perhaps. Doesn't change the fact he got fucked over with false promises and no delivery, not to mention no refund (which is plainly not according to the law)

Lawsuits are usually "ask a lot, get something". His argument is that he was fucked over, you're arguing about the extent of it, not against the fact that he indeed was.

Since there are good lawyers and bad lawyers, the truth of whether he is a lawyer or not isn't important. What is important is his reasoning, and his reasoning on the FTC rules makes a lot of sense.

You have to read the rule not the guidance.  The guidance is not explicit (and is subject to the actual rule, which is quoted in full below your text), but what the FTC means by "any option" is a clearly a reference to an option under 435.2(a) or (b).  Look at 435.2(b)(3) for example:

Note that your reading of the guidance (not the rule) would render (b)(1) superfluous.  Why would the FTC have a rule that provides for a right to cancel a pre-order when the seller fails to meet the time, when (as you would read it) the buyer can instead just cancel willy-nilly at any time?

I am up for this.  Tom, please PM me if you are interested in getting your refund.  AMT's offer to essentially refund by allowing me to take your place seems very fair and will help you out at home.   I would love to have two of these but I ordered only one (and I already tried to buy another from AMT already on the hope they would ship both units at the same time as my first order, but they refused to allow me to jump ahead of queue for the second).   So everyone is happy!  Please PM me.

Everyone else should please keep quiet about legal matters that it is clear no one understands.  I AM a lawyer, so let me help out those of you who labor under misconceptions of (consumerist) grandeur.  

First, unlike BFL and Black Arrow, AMT appears to me to be PERFECTLY in compliance with the law regarding pre-orders, which is set forth in 16 CFR Part 435.  In a nutshell, Part 435 requires that (a) a seller must state a specific time within which a pre-order will ship, AND (b) the seller must have a reasonable basis to believe that shipment within that time will happen.  If there is a delay beyond that time, AMT must then (and only then) offer a refund.  Note that the "30 day rule" ONLY applies where the seller does not provide a specific time period for shipment (AMT has provides a very explicit one week window with my order, so it is clear they have a lawyer who read the FTC rule unlike everyone else here).

Here are the relevant parts of the rule:

In connection with mail or telephone order sales in or affecting commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, it constitutes an unfair method of competition, and an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a seller:

(a)(1) To solicit any order for the sale of merchandise to be ordered by the buyer through the mail or by telephone unless, at the time of the solicitation, the seller has a reasonable basis to expect that it will be able to ship any ordered merchandise to the buyer:

(i) Within that time clearly and conspicuously stated in any such solicitation; or

(ii) If no time is clearly and conspicuously stated, within thirty (30) days after receipt of a properly completed order from the buyer, Provided, however, where, at the time the merchandise is ordered the buyer applies to the seller for credit to pay for the merchandise in whole or in part, the seller shall have fifty (50) days, rather than thirty (30) days, to perform the actions required in § 435.2 (a)(1)(ii) of this part.

[snip]

(b)(1) Where a seller is unable to ship merchandise within the applicable time set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, to fail to offer to the buyer, clearly and conspicuously and without prior demand, an option either to consent to a delay in shipping or to cancel the buyer's order and receive a prompt refund. Said offer shall be made within a reasonable time after the seller first becomes aware of its inability to ship within the applicable time set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, but in no event later than said applicable time.

Hopefully that puts the LEGAL issues to rest.  I am not aware of any state laws that are more aggressive than the FTC rule; and the FTC rule has a $16,000 per violation penalty (!!) so it would be a pretty serious matter.  How Black Arrow and BFL get away with their shenanigans I have no idea (maybe they will claim not to be subject to U.S. law) but what they are doing clearly violates the FTC rule (and further, no contractual language can evade this, as it is a matter of U.S. federal law).  AMT has made a clear and conspicuous statement of when they will ship their orders.  I believe all AMT orders have a one week delivery period stated, so that satisfies (a)(1)(i).  To my knowledge, they have not missed any ship date (if they did, the refund provision would kick in, but not until then).  Unlike BA and BFL (and KNC for that matter), AMT has chips in hand, and is building the units.  That would seem to constitute a reasonable basis for believing they will hit their ship dates, which is the most fundamental requirement.

So what we have here is buyer's remorse.  As a matter of law, AMT is not yet under ANY obligation to offer refunds for buyer remorse.  As a matter of business policy, they have said they would allow someone (hopefully me) to buy out a pre-order for a customer with buyer's remorse.  You can argue as a matter of customer service (not law) that they *should* refund all orders at the whim of the ordering party, but very few made to order goods work this way.  Why?  Because if that was the rule then everyone would submit pre-orders with every company merely to hold their place in line, and then demand refunds when something better comes along (or when they have a mortgage payment past due, or a complaining spouse/sig other).  Businesses cannot operate with that type of uncertainty when they have to go out of pocket to buy chips, manufacture circuity boards, etc.  So far, AMT has been fully in compliance with the law (unlike their brethren) and has provided more info than anyone else on their status.  If they miss their ship dates, or if they pull a Black Arrow on us, I will be the first to be demanding refunds and filing FTC complaints.  Until then, there is nothing we can or should do.  

Jeff

No official statement from me about this