Did the BFL terms and conditions contain a term that they were sold on a B2B basis?
If not, that has nothing to do with the KNC position.
It has everything to do with what you wrote. They are selling industrial machines designed to make money.
They provide no utility other than making money.
For some of the machines, they can't easily be run in a normal US house without wiring modifications.
You seem to be assuming that owning a bitcoin miner makes you a business. No, I'm saying that on top of you agreeing that you bought as a business, there are a number of issues (such as above), which KNC would point out to show that it was reasonable for them to believe that you were in fact buying for commercial reasons. This isn't like the German car sales example. This will probably have to be tested in court. But I have a feeling a reasonable judge will see this for what it really is, a crude attempt to rob customers of their consumer rights. Once that happens KNC are finished.
As I've said, it may well be that you would win on this point in court. But you have to actually get to court first, and while threatening legal action is a favourite internet pastime, hardly anyone actually follows through on it, and KNC probably took that into account. And if anyone does actually go through the process of starting Swedish proceedings, and looking like they might actually follow through, KNC can simply come to an agreement to refund that person, without it creating any sort of precedent for others. To really 'win' requires someone to be prepared to spend more on legal costs than they would receive in refunds, because they want to make a principled point / and or because they want to 'get' KNC. (I don't know about the Swedish system, but in the UK, if they have turned down a reasonable refund offer to do this, they may not be able to recover their costs.) Any volunteers? They've taken your money and delivered a late, poor quality product. Is that something to be applauded? No. Are they probably going to get away with it? Yes. Is that in large part because purchasers voluntarily signed away their consumer rights? Yes. |
|
|
|
A [single-attorney?] law firm which specialises in DUIs, traffic tickets and immigration/employment issues is going to successfully bring a product-related class-action suit against a non-US corporation? Good luck. Hope you haven't given them any money. |
|
|
|
Can you prove that they aren't?
They are selling industrial machines designed to make money.
They provide no utility other than making money.
For some of the machines, they can't easily be run in a normal US house without wiring modifications.
Each purchaser has agreed that they are purchasing as a business.
You would need to prove that those agreements were shams, or should be set aside for some other reason.
Well the FTC took a different view, so we'll go with that shall we? http://www.coindesk.com/ftc-butterfly-labs-held-back-shipments-illicit-mining/“[Butterfly Labs] misrepresented the delivery and profitability of the BitForce machine, and then made the same misrepresentations to induce consumers to purchase the Monarch.”
Note the word consumers. It seems mining crypto doesn't automatically make you a business, so if all KNC are hanging their hat on is that line hidden away in their T&Cs, then they had better strap in and prepare for a rough ride. Did the BFL terms and conditions contain a term that they were sold on a B2B basis? If not, that has nothing to do with the KNC position. |
|
|
|
What are you saying here? That we should have read the small print? Yes. You were spending thousands of dollars for a product that didn't exist at the time you ordered it. Pretty obviously it is going to be important for you to know what happens if something goes wrong. Read what you are agreeing to. I don't think it matters what KNC have/had or will put in their T&Cs, they are a dishonest bunch of crooks. Do you really think they'd be handing out refunds and shipping devices that actually worked if that line wasn't there? I'm not defending them. I think their business practices are pretty unpleasant. I'm just saying that they successfully got you to agree to opt-out of consumer protection. That is a benefit for them, and a loss for you. (And I said it back in August 2013 when the Bitcoinarama shill was trying to convince people that this didn't matter, so this isn't a case of 20-20 hindsight.) It may well be that if you took this to court, you would be able to convince a judge that this clause shouldn't apply to you, and that you should be considered a consumer. However, you would have to actually go to court to prove this, which is a time and expense that they know most people won't be bothered to take. You would also have to either sue them in Sweden (more time and expense), or first convince a judge to allow you to sue them locally (more time and expense). I'm not saying they haven't screwed you, I'm saying they have successfully screwed you. |
|
|
|
Maybe if we had some clear info of what Magnus needs and what needs to be done we could move on and get everything together, and not just starting emailing him with "Hi, I heard you wanna sue KNC.."
Where to start?
I am from the UK. I actually think it is best that each person emails Magnus directly since he won't act for anyone without some kind of payment, and this must be arranged first. In his reply to me today he said: " If you purchased the product as a consumer, you have the right to cancel the purchase according to Swedish law. If you are a private consumer the seller can’t deny you this right legally. We can assist you in writing to the company with a legal claim, explaining to them on what grounds they have to refund you. If they haven’t done that in a week I would like to inform them that I have been instructed by you to sue them in court to retrieve the money." "However, there seem to be a number of disappointed customers who have requested our assistance which will drive down the legal costs..... I can keep you updated on how the costs develop along the way. I will also keep you posted if there is an opportunity for a group law suit, when I have communicated with all the disappointed KnC-customers, that have e-mailed me over the last few days." Have you told them about the part of the T&C where you agreed that we weren't purchasing as a consumer? This is exactly the question I asked in my reply, but have not yet had an answer. I suspect that this is an unfair condition to have in the T&C, since it is mentioned nowhere else on KnCMiner's website and is not made clear at any point during the purchase. The "consumers right to cancel" is not the point I am pushing in my request for a refund. Whether a consumer or a business, KnC have not delivered on their contractual obligations and falsely advertised the product. In my opinion they will need to refund customers. I would love to see them try and prove that at least 50% of their customers are business clients and not "private customers".. Can you prove that they aren't? They are selling industrial machines designed to make money. They provide no utility other than making money. For some of the machines, they can't easily be run in a normal US house without wiring modifications. Each purchaser has agreed that they are purchasing as a business. You would need to prove that those agreements were shams, or should be set aside for some other reason. |
|
|
|
I doubt it is possible to effectively take a class action in California against a Swedish company unless the defendants has a legal presence in California or the US.
I would have thought KNC would only worry about actions brought under Swedish law.
This is completely absurd. Many thousands of European companies have been sued in the Federal Courts of California. Happens all the time. If you sell products to Americans, you 'avail yourself' of the laws and courts jurisdiction. US consumer laws protect US citizens. You can sell defective dangerous products to Americans and avoid consumer protection laws. Otherwise, dodgy companies would all just go set up operations is some shit bag country and sell dangerous products competing with companies who sell well designed product in conformance with the laws. Why oh why do people believe that Swedish companies are allowed to sell dangerous products to American citizens without having to answer to laws in the US. That is very funny. To avail yourself of consumer protection laws, you have to have bought as a consumer. The T&Cs you agreed to say that you didn't. |
|
|
|
Maybe if we had some clear info of what Magnus needs and what needs to be done we could move on and get everything together, and not just starting emailing him with "Hi, I heard you wanna sue KNC.."
Where to start?
I am from the UK. I actually think it is best that each person emails Magnus directly since he won't act for anyone without some kind of payment, and this must be arranged first. In his reply to me today he said: " If you purchased the product as a consumer, you have the right to cancel the purchase according to Swedish law. If you are a private consumer the seller can’t deny you this right legally. We can assist you in writing to the company with a legal claim, explaining to them on what grounds they have to refund you. If they haven’t done that in a week I would like to inform them that I have been instructed by you to sue them in court to retrieve the money." "However, there seem to be a number of disappointed customers who have requested our assistance which will drive down the legal costs..... I can keep you updated on how the costs develop along the way. I will also keep you posted if there is an opportunity for a group law suit, when I have communicated with all the disappointed KnC-customers, that have e-mailed me over the last few days." Have you told them about the part of the T&C where you agreed that we weren't purchasing as a consumer? This is exactly the question I asked in my reply, but have not yet had an answer. I suspect that this is an unfair condition to have in the T&C, since it is mentioned nowhere else on KnCMiner's website and is not made clear at any point during the purchase. Titan first batch ordering page: https://web.archive.org/web/20140328222749/https://www.kncminer.com/categories/litecoin-mining-hardwareTitan is our first scrypt mining product and will be shipping in Q2/Q3 of 2014.
The stats and performance that we can release today are
Minimum 250/MH/s of performance
Uses a Standard ATX power supply (customer supplied ATX)
Based on the existing Jupiter form factor but will have blades of cards inside
Shipment begins in Q2/Q3 of 2014
Payment for this product is bitcoins and bank transfer only (we will add litecoin as a payment method in the near future)
as this is KnCMiner we of course reserve the right to increase the performance at any time,
Note** this is a preorder all customers are reminded to please read the terms and conditions carefully before ordering. Titan second batch ordering page: https://web.archive.org/web/20140701181846/https://www.kncminer.com/categories/litecoin-mining-hardwareThe stats and performance that we can release today are
Minimum 400/MH/s of performance from a 28nm chip
Uses a Standard ATX power supply (customer supplied ATX)
Based on the existing Jupiter form factor
Shipment begins one month after Batch 1
Payment for this product is bitcoins, Litcoins and bank transfer only
as this is KnCMiner we of course reserve the right to increase the performance at any time,
Note** this is a preorder all customers are reminded to please read the terms and conditions carefully before ordering.
This product is nonrefundable |
|
|
|
Maybe if we had some clear info of what Magnus needs and what needs to be done we could move on and get everything together, and not just starting emailing him with "Hi, I heard you wanna sue KNC.."
Where to start?
I am from the UK. I actually think it is best that each person emails Magnus directly since he won't act for anyone without some kind of payment, and this must be arranged first. In his reply to me today he said: " If you purchased the product as a consumer, you have the right to cancel the purchase according to Swedish law. If you are a private consumer the seller can’t deny you this right legally. We can assist you in writing to the company with a legal claim, explaining to them on what grounds they have to refund you. If they haven’t done that in a week I would like to inform them that I have been instructed by you to sue them in court to retrieve the money." "However, there seem to be a number of disappointed customers who have requested our assistance which will drive down the legal costs..... I can keep you updated on how the costs develop along the way. I will also keep you posted if there is an opportunity for a group law suit, when I have communicated with all the disappointed KnC-customers, that have e-mailed me over the last few days." Have you told them about the part of the T&C where you agreed that we weren't purchasing as a consumer? |
|
|
|
Please provide some evidence to back up anything you have said above.
Okay. So, we don't agree.  So you can't provide any evidence to back up your claims? |
|
|
|
In other words, attorney talk in a common law court does nothing. This is a completely inaccurate summary of that quote. Again, Bangladesh may be different, somewhat. Trinsey v. Pagliaro wouldn't apply, probably. A common law court is based on what the claimants allow. No it isn't. It is based on the rules of the court, as interpreted and enforced by the judge. An attorney CAN talk with effect in a common law court if the claimants allow him. No, that is not true. The claimants cannot prevent the defendant's attorney speaking on his behalf. The defendant has a right to be represented. The point of talking about T v. P is the idea that the claimant bringing the case in common law has stated in one way or another that attorneys may NOT talk. That isn't true. If you actually read the case, it says: The defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim unsupported by affidavits or depositions is incomplete because it requests this Court to consider facts outside the record which have not been presented in the form required by Rules 12(b) (6) and 56(c). Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment. It has nothing to do with the claimants saying that attorneys can't talk. That is just crap made up by wacky websites, that you have accepted without checking. What it says is that defendants have to actually submit evidence of what they claim, they can't just claim it. That would be exactly the same if the defendants had represented themselves, without counsel.If it is put in the form of an order by that claimant, then whatever an attorney says is not admitted into the record. That isn't true. You do realize that common law courts are courts of record? What do you think that means? I'm not going to bother with the rest, as the above shows that you simply have no understand of how courts work. Please provide some evidence to back up anything you have said above. |
|
|
|
Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647. "Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment." Yes, this is an accurate quote from the link I gave you. You still haven't been able to find the 'missing' part of the transcript, have you? Because it doesn't exist. In other words, attorney talk in a common law court does nothing. This is a completely inaccurate summary of that quote. An attorney cannot simply say something, and have the court accept it as a fact. Obviously, I don't think anyone would have thought that they could. That doesn't mean, as you have claimed previously, that they aren't allowed to talk at all, and you can simply tell them to shut up. Again, I have to ask. There are these wonderous facts that you know and noone else does, that completely change the way the law works. And yet noone else has thought of them before? All those people going to jail and paying fines that don't need to? And not one person has thought of making bundles of money applying these wonderous facts to become the best defense lawyer in the world? Does that really sound likely? Are you that arrogant? Isn't it far more likely that everyone else is right and you are wrong? |
|
|
|
That serious scientists don't publish their research in the Daily Mail. |
|
|
|
KNC take note http://www.coindesk.com/ftc-butterfly-labs-held-back-shipments-illicit-mining/“[Butterfly Labs] misrepresented the delivery and profitability of the BitForce machine, and then made the same misrepresentations to induce consumers to purchase the Monarch, and did so yet again to sell their cloud mining services. They should not get a fourth change (or a fifth chance, in the case of one of the defendants).”
It's interesting to note the FTC called BFL customers "consumers" this blows a hole in the you have to be a business to own miners argument. In the US at least. If the same is proven true in Europe KNC will probably be bankrupted by refunds. I'm going to use every waking minute to find out. The game's afoot. Who has said you need to be a business to own miners? That is a strawman argument. The KNC terms and conditions includes a clear requirement that the purchaser agreed that they were purchasing as a business, not a consumer. Did the BFL TnC include the same term? If not, what does one have to do with the other? |
|
|
|
If it is, every online vendor shouldn't accept credit cards at all without personally taking a stool sample.
If they didn't accept credit cards, they would lose custom to those stores that did accept them. Each store has to balance their own risk profile against the lost custom. |
|
|
|
In a common law nation, common law is basic. There are parallel systems of law running right in the same court. A magistrate may attempt to draw a person over into statute law by using certain words in court. If the person bringing the claim is careful, he will block the judge's use of words that would otherwise remove him from common law over into statute law. Most people aren't experienced enough to realize what is happening. Sigh. This just isn't true. If a specific statue has been passed criminalising a specific act, you cannot 'block' being punished under that statue by using magic words. Did you find the rest of the holdings for Trinsey v. Pagliaro? If you did, you will see how in a man to man claim in court, attorneys can be made to remain silent unless they are actual witnesses to the case. But if they are witnesses, they can't act as attorneys. There are no more holdings. I have shown you the full trial transcript for the case. I have shown you that it just doesn't say what you have been told it says. You can read it yourself and see that. Why do you still believe the rubbish you have been told, even when it is proved to be wrong? |
|
|
|
The first part has to do with all kinds of laws that the government makes.
The second part has to do with the customs of the people. It's called Queen's Bench.
If a person can get into Queen's Bench in the courts, the laws often don't apply.
This is simply nonsense. Here is a link to the posted 2014 decisions of the England and Wales Queen's Bench. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/Please read some, and try to find any connection to what you think it seems to be. (I don't actually think it is true that Bangladesh does have a Queen's Bench division.) |
|
|
|
Bangladesh is an English common law nation. This means that they have Queen's Bench. Queen's Bench means that a man's or a woman's private property rules over all other laws. If the people only understood this, the whole face of government over there would change. I hear that Karl Lentz is going to India.
No it doesn't. Please stop repeating this rubbish, people might actually act on it. Look at what Karl did in England using English common law. What has he done? Seriously. Apart from a badly designed website selling his books and talks, what has he done? He claims to have a magic way of avoiding almost all laws, why isn't he acting as defence lawyer and changing the face of the legal system? The most obvious conclusion would be that he is talking rubbish. What is your conclusion? |
|
|
|
I was at the doctors office a while ago filling out of
the form and one of the questions was: do you
wear your seatbelt?
I felt like giving the same answer.
"Not at the moment" would seem like a good answer to that. |
|
|
|
True. I did actually talk to Amazon a time or two in the July timeframe relating to a specific transaction or two, but didn't plainly ask them about the whole subject. If I were Amazon I would have this in their Gift Card FAQs warning about risks of 3rd-party gift card sales and outlining what can happen (such as in this case).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=3122091Limitations. Gift Cards may not be redeemed for the purchase of products at www.amazon.at, www.amazon.com.br, www.amazon.ca, www.amazon.cn, www.amazon.de, www.amazon.es, www.amazon.fr, www.amazon.in, www.amazon.it, www.amazon.co.jp, www.amazon.com.mx, www.amazon.co.uk, or any other website owned and operated by us, our affiliates, or any other person or entity, except as indicated by these terms and conditions. Gift Cards cannot be used to purchase other gift cards. Gift Cards cannot be reloaded, resold, transferred for value or redeemed for cash, except to the extent required by law. Unused Gift Card balances in an Amazon.com account may not be transferred to another Amazon.com account. By reselling your gifts cards on eBay, you have violated the terms and conditions. |
|
|
|
4. If the United States, or one of the States is bringing the charge against you, then the United States better take the stand. A representative for the United States isn't allowed to take the stand, because you have a right to face your accuser, and you are doing it man to man.
5. You win because the United States or the State isn't able to walk up to the stand, place its hand on the Bible, swear or affirm, and answer any of your questions in cross examination, including signing an affidavit to the claim of wrongdoing made against you.
Rubbish. Simply untrue, as demonstrated by every criminal case in the US. 6. If, somehow, the United States or the State manages to take the stand, there has to be real harm or damage, or breaking of a contract, shown before they can rule against you. They can accuse you of doing all kinds of things against a statute, and they may be absolutely right, but if there is no harm or damage, and if your name isn't listed and you haven't signed as a party to the statute, you win, they lose. Rubbish, as above. You must have noticed that, in the real world, this simply isn't true. There are thousands if not millions of people in prison in the US for drug crimes which don't fit any of your descriptions. Do you really think that none of their lawyers spotted this obvious loophole you seem to think exists?[...] Your description of the law may well be wonderful idea. But it does not reflect the law in this, the actual real world. That's the problem. Folks simply love to be led like sheep to the slaughter in front of the judges, because they don't know that they can stand up in ways other than what is normally done. So is the answer seriously yes? You really think that you have found a wonderful loophole in the law that somehow every lawyer and defendant has missed, and there are millions of people in prison who could have simply walked free if only they knew what you did? That's... pretty delusional. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
