I am impressed with your close analysis of the UCC! Unfortunately, you took a couple wrong turns. As a threshold matter, the UCC is not a federal code. It is a uniform set of laws enacted to a greater or lesser extent in many states. Also, it may not even be relevant here. I'm happy to help guide you through from the beginning if you're truly interested in getting the correct answer.
I was never claiming that UCC is a federal code. Rather, for the sake of the discussion, we were looking at Missouri's UCC, because that is where the member who has a complaint lives, and that was the agreed place of delivery for the goods. This was the original thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.900If you would like to check the (very brief  ) terms and conditions of BFL, I suggest that you visit their site ( https://products.butterflylabs.com/) and have a look at the information displayed before one places an order. |
|
|
|
The act of purchase was glossed over. He also did not mention that the market value of the goods had risen in the intervening time, nor did he mention that full price was paid for goods that did not yet exist. It was not an order, or reservation, or deposit. It was a full purchase. It got so far only a single response. You are quite right that the act of payment/purchase is omitted, and furthermore, that the "expert" seems to have overlooked the applicable provisions of UCC. |
|
|
|
Well IF I was STILL an existing customer of BFL I would cancel my order NOW! or buy another product to be able to gauge an expected consideration of loss through BFL's inability to deliver.
I think that is what I got from that marathon or reading I just did. Good job on the post for that work.
You may have the right to cancel the contract due to failure of BFL to deliver in reasonable time, and this due to their failure to perform. I suggest that you check the UCC for details. |
|
|
|
BFL can proactively decide not to do business with Xian. However, after having done business with him and entering a contract with him, the time for their right to refuse has come and gone.
Thank you for explaining the law in simple terms. |
|
|
|
Thanks! Nice Introduction (see my comment, though). |
|
|
|
I would like to add that the damages incurred can be very difficult to prove when a firm delivery date isn't specified.
I respectfully disagree. A 5 Gh/s miner has a calculable number of BTC that it can generate per month, and since BTC has a value (can be sold at an exchange), there is a clear monetary loss, and so one can prove consequential damages rather easily. |
|
|
|
There is one point I wanted to correct: Well, imo, atleast in Missouri you can expect delivery and if delivery doesn't occur in a "reasonable" amount of time or is repudiate (basically they say, look I'm not going to deliver this) then you can "cover" your costs and damages plus get a substitute product without spending extra money. This doesn't obligate a company to do business with you, so if you piss off your vendor, they can (and have) cancel your order. Nothing I've seen outside of an explicit contract or SLA forces any U.S. business to do business with a person they don't want too, even if payment was already sent. So guys, until you decide you can't handle the risk and cancel your order, be respectful to your vendors. Other than that please let me know what you think and feel free to let me know where I might have "jumped the rails" a bit
A vendor can refuse to sell you additional items, beyond what you have already paid for. But the vendor cannot lawfully cancel your order. Cancelling your order is a form of repudiation of the contract (i.e., expressing clear intent to not perform the contract). Giving you a full refund does not alter that. |
|
|
|
Except there isn't a signed contract. Only an implied one in the sense that he delivered money up front and BFL would provide him with a product once they were created / produced. I would say legally, until they get to the point where they would have his order ready they can still back out of the deal.
Contract is made through offer and acceptance. BFL offers for sale certain future goods for a fixed price. Its website provides a way not only for accepting the offer, but also to make a payment. That is called a contract of sale. |
|
|
|
BFL may refuse to sell Xian further goods (beyond what Xian already paid for), but BFL cannot repudiate the contract of sale. In fact, doing so to retaliate Xian for speaking his mind publicly could arguably be grounds for punitive damages. Just because BFL no longer likes the face of Xian does not exempt BFL from the legal obligation to perform and deliver. |
|
|
|
Well I have summarized the facts and the numbers before on this thread. I hope you don't mind if I ask you to go back and actually read the thread rather than have me re-posting my comments ad infinitum.
I do not mind, but would you please be so kind to include a link? There are 49 pages of this thread, so finding the right post is a fairly non-trivial task, unless you know what you are looking for exactly. |
|
|
|
Downloaded Catalyst 13.1, tried all the settings in the thread again it never goes above 700 ...  Did you also try Catalyst 13.4? (Or was it what you were having trouble with earlier?) Yesterday I tried catalyst 13.4 and today 13.1, seems strange because some guy told me he has the same cards :S... Which OS do you use? If I were you, I would try Linux (a clean install) just to eliminate other possible causes of the problem. |
|
|
|
Downloaded Catalyst 13.1, tried all the settings in the thread again it never goes above 700 ... Did you also try Catalyst 13.4? (Or was it what you were having trouble with earlier?) |
|
|
|
UCC broadens the damages, because it also allows incidental and consequential damages. It also explicitly allows for recovery of "cover" costs, that is, the purchase of a substitute item.
You mean I could buy an Avalon as a "cover cost". The law is a wonderful process. (I am joking/kidding) You may be kidding, but depending on the circumstances, it may be a valid action, and yes, BFL may be on the hook. |
|
|
|
Interesting read. I am a mathematician too as it happens. Makes me unsure why you would jump on board with this guy given the facts and numbers.
I am not sure what you mean by "given the facts and numbers." The law does seem to be quite strongly in favour of Xian. |
|
|
|
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...
That is very kind of you to say, but I must confess that I am not a lawyer. I am a mathematician. My legal experience is mainly is in the area of air passenger rights (which is an interesting mix of contract law, regulatory law, and administrative law): http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2012/07/canadas-airline-industry |
|
|
|
In the UK we used to see litigation as a last resort for the genuinely aggreived - but now we are becoming an 'ambulance chaser insurance claim litigation' society too I fear...
Do you believe that Xian is not genuinely aggrieved...? If I were in BFL's place, I would apologize to Xian, and ship him his order ASAP, because of the bad publicity, and the possible damage that a lawsuit may cause to their reputation, and also due to the potential costs of a lawsuit. While Xian can take them to small claims court and be self-represented, BFL will need to retain a lawyer, because they are a corporation. |
|
|
|
I know there are some in America who like litigation but don't you think you are just building up xian's hopes? Talk about kick a man while he's down...
Litigation is a question of stamina and money. But if some state of federal consumer protection agency gets on Xian's side, then I think BFL is going to be very quickly in a very tight spot. US is a place where law enforcement people have no sense of humor: they know that enforceability of contracts is vital for a functional economy. |
|
|
|
the word repudiate. I didn't see anything in the definitions section that indicates anything that alters the common language definition
I suggest that you look it up this term in Black's Law dictionary (page 1330 in the 8th edition). In the context of contract law it means "to indicate an intention not to perform." So the point of contention/qualification is failure to deliver. This get complicated by the statement "currently scheduled for October", so the burden of proof would be: Was there a point that bfl said "It's definately coming out in two weeks"?. Am I following this correctly? Did I miss something?
There are two issues: (a) Did the seller indicate in any way (e.g., by issuing a refund with the buyer requesting so) refusal to perform? If yes, then it was repudiation. (b) Did the seller fail to deliver within the timeframe set out in the contract, or in the absence of such a stipulation, with reasonable time? |
|
|
|
[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.
UCC broadens the damages, because it also allows incidental and consequential damages. It also explicitly allows for recovery of "cover" costs, that is, the purchase of a substitute item. |
|
|
|
Btw almost done with the discussion in the legal forum. drlukacs, do you want me to just start a thread in the legal section and point to it here?
Sure.
I would add to this that in the case of the car purchase there would be an explicit contract with cancellation clauses and the details of that would regulate a situation.
I agree. Fortunately, drafters of the UCC thought even about this: 400.2-309. (1) The time for shipment or delivery or any other action under a contract if not provided in this article or agreed upon shall be a reasonable time. A judge will be considering whether in light of an indicated delivery time of October 2012, non-delivery by May 2013 is "reasonable." All I can say that I would not want to be counsel for BFL at that hearing... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
