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. As always  ty for helping me along understanding this. This is the most confusing part for me. Some of the things I read make a distinction between "repudiation" and a desire to terminate a relations. I really want to clarify this. It would be great for consumers, if this is the case, and this is the most important definition in this document. I will start searching for precedence in the courts to show guidance on this. I so far haven't really seen anything. I have seen mention of cases where a person orders, pays, and then gets their order canceled and refunded. I haven't seen anywhere that draws a line between refusing to do deliver and the termination due to a desire to end a business relationship (where not bound by explicit contract or SLA). I really think, only citation from a similar case in the courts would definitively resolve this. As always, I'm willing to say I may be completely wrong (probably am lol ). I'm just not sure that say "I no longer find our business relationship worth continuing" fully equates to saying "I am not going to deliver a product". Hypothetical discussion won't really resolve this, so I'll take this issue to be homework and will try to search for a related case that will show court opinion on the matter. Anybody who knows of a case, it would be a great help to link it Great discussion guys this is awesome fun |
|
|
|
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. Tempting to add that tidbit to the thread over there and see if that changes things. P.S. I noted the "Monica", but this is the internet and unfortunately the rules of TOGTFO apply.  I'd encourage any amount of discussion or contribution that is intended to be productive. I didn't directly link, because I was worried they might get jumped with a 100 btc users and their forum doesn't general deal with that many people descending on them at once I was probably being overly cautious and respectful. |
|
|
|
Hello Miners and other interested Parties:) So I spent about 30 hours here and on some legal forums trying to understand what the actual rights of miners who pre-order hardware. I was very frustrated trying to get to the bottom of what really is and is not a right of person purchasing through pre-orders. I really believe it's important to know your rights and assess your risks properly. So I decided to share this for others to learn and discuss. I am not a lawyer and this should not be construed to be legal advice. The purpose of this thread is to spawn discussion and to educate consumers so they may properly deal with vendors and understand liabilities when doing so. This is not meant express a complete tome of information or replace the need for counsel (In fact I highly suggest if you are in a legal situation you immediate retain counsel). This thread is NOT here to demean, defame, or otherwise discuss specific people or entities. Please help me to develop and correct any information is here. I enjoy the interaction and education So let's jump in here: Your ready to spend a few thousand (or tens of thousands) dollars on some mining hardware? You really need to make sure you understand your risks before risking hard earned BTC. What covers the consumer when doing online pre-orders? There are the terms and conditions of the sale and then there is implied warranty. Terms and Conditions are extremely important to understand when spending large amount of money. They can dictate a lot of rights in the absence of a formal contract. Please read them. Implied warranty covers a basic set of assurances regarding commercial and private trade. It is perhaps one of the most important laws you need to wrap your head around. Wikipedia covers it nicely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warrantyThis point forward will cover what I've learned about the United States laws covering Implied Warranty. These conditions are unified in a federal code referred to as UCC(Uniform Commercial Code): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_CodeThis provides a framework that is implemented in each state's localized law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/ucc.htmlGenerally speaking, my current understanding is that, when pursuing consumer protections claims, it's filed in the state of the business itself. (can anybody confirm?) It's important to read and understand the protections of your own state and the state of entity you are doing business with. Things get even more difficult when doing international trade. Anybody that can offer insight on this would be awesome. I imagine there would be very little cost effective means to enforce any agreement. There are some terms I ran across that might not be fully understood by the layperson when understanding your rights. For this part I will pick on Missouri law (only because It's what I was researching while learning). Some definitions of importance (huge credit for user drlukacs for being so kind as to walk me through most of this): Where does "pre-order" qualify to be covered by UCC? 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.[/b
And just as an aside I'll get to in a few, the word "repudiate" as it's used legally for contracts: to indicate an intention not to perform. Ok here are the key points and code of law bits I understand to be relevant: 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. Obviously concerns us with pre-order, so if you don't have a definitive date you are relying on what's considered by a court to be reasonable as the dates are changed (think about what technology has exhibit in the past. . . Duke Nukem' forever anybody). § 2-712. "Cover"; Buyer's Procurement of Substitute Goods.
(1) If the seller wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates or the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance, the buyer may "cover" by making in good faith and without unreasonable delay any reasonable purchase of or contract to purchase goods in substitution for those due from the seller.
(2) The buyer may recover from the seller as damages the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages as hereinafter defined (Section 2-715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.
(3) Failure of the buyer to effect cover within this section does not bar him from any other remedy.
If they don't deliver or express an intent not to deliver, you can not only get your money back, but ask for the difference of funds it would take to purchase a "substitution" product and "any incidental or consequential damage". Though, another aside I will get to in a bit, this does NOT necessarily oblige them to do business with you. (My understanding is they can refund you and not do business with you for any reason not classified as a protected class . . sex, age, race, etc.) § 2-713. Buyer's Damages for Non-delivery or Repudiation.
(1) Subject to Section 2-723, if the seller wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates or the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance:
(a) the measure of damages in the case of wrongful failure to deliver by the seller or rightful rejection or justifiable revocation of acceptance by the buyer is the difference between the market price at the time for tender under the contract and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages under Section 2-715, but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach; and
(b) the measure of damages for repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the expiration of a commercially reasonable time after the buyer learned of the repudiation, but no later than the time stated in paragraph (a), and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages provided in this Article (Section 2--715), less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.
(2) Market price is to be determined as of the place for tender or, in cases of rejection after arrival or revocation of acceptance, as of the place of arrival.
This is my least favorite legal ease to parse. It combines math and legal terminology, I'd rather get punched in the face, but I will do my best. My horrible explanation (please somebody help me elaborate this) is going to be. . . Taking in to consideration the costs imposed on and market value of the product in addition to damages incurred by the wronged party the guilty will pay for what they caused the other party's loss to be. . . ish . . .hahhaa ok, somebody seriously help me here. So anyhoo (*quickly runs away from that last paragraph*), due to recent explosions in the community, at this point, I was lead to ask the question "Can a vendor cancel your order because they get tired of the business relationship?". I couldn't find anything in UCC that explicitly dealt with issue or denied a business the right to chose not to do business with a person. (aside from previously discussed protected classes). It appeared to me that they could do it, but I'm no great legal mind, so I sought verification from a forum that specializes in consumer law. Off to the webs!!!! Here's what I got back after explaining the scenario:
Endlessa: Can the company just cancel an order that was paid for and waited on for X months?
Greater Mind (Not actual name): Of course the company CAN cancel the order. It already DID cancel the order.
Woot that made me feel super smart /s . . .but I had to ask it to verify my understanding
Endlessa: Is this actually breach of implied contract or any other kind of contract?
Greater Mind: "Delivery Date is currently scheduled for XXXX" is so vague as to be meaningless. Seems tentative to me and implies that there might be future changes in the delivery schedule.
Ok that's helpful finally a good question feeling much better now
Endlessa: Does "seller fails to make delivery or repudiates" apply to this? Why or Why not?
Greater Mind: in the absence of a guaranteed deliver date, I don't see where the buyer has any other options but to cancel his order and go elsewhere or wait until the product is available. And the seller can certainly opt to cancel the order and refund the money if the customer turns out to be an ahole who spreads his vitriole all over the internet.
Wow now we're getting to the heart of it ( found this surprisingly close to home as I just told the customer was expressing frustration in the community forums)
Endlessa: Does cancellation alleviate any future obligation of the company?
Greater Mind: Yes.
Well that was short and concise. Other comments of interest
There is nothing in the limited information you posted that would indicate that any illegality occurred ....
So where does that leave us? 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 Edit SectionAnother bit of code we are beginning to explore and I'm hoping to get verification of relevance: Definitions--"contract"--"agreement"--"contract for sale"--"sale"--"present sale"--"conforming" to contract--"termination"--"cancellation".
400.2-106. (1) In this article unless the context otherwise requires "contract" and "agreement" are limited to those relating to the present or future sale of goods. "Contract for sale" includes both a present sale of goods and a contract to sell goods at a future time. A "sale" consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price (section 400.2-401). A "present" means a sale which is accomplished by the making of the contract.
(2) Goods or conduct including any part of a performance are "conforming" or conform to the contract when they are in accordance with the obligations under the contract.
(3) "Termination" occurs when either party pursuant to a power created by agreement or law puts an end to the contract otherwise than for its breach. On "termination" all obligations which are still executory on both sides are discharged but any right based on prior breach or performance survives.
(4) "Cancellation" occurs when either party puts an end to the contract for breach by the other and its effect is the same as that of "termination" except that the cancelling party also retains any remedy for breach of the whole contract or any unperformed balance.
(L. 1963 p. 503 § 2-106)
If you would like to jump to the beginning of that discussion https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=217036.msg2286577#msg2286577Another interesting bit of code:
§ 2-309. Absence of Specific Time Provisions; Notice of Termination.
(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.
(2) If the contract provides for successive performances but is indefinite in duration, it is valid for a reasonable time but unless otherwise agreed may be terminated at any time by either party.
(3) Termination of a contract by one party except on the happening of an agreed event requires that reasonable notification be received by the other party and an agreement dispensing with notification is invalid if its operation would be unconscionable. A term specifying standards for the nature and timing of notice is enforceable if the standards are not manifestly unreasonable.
If you would like to jump to the beginning of that discussion https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=217036.msg2288560#msg2288560Additional article on Buyer and Seller Obligations to consider: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Seller's+ObligationsI will do my best to keep this updated. |
|
|
|
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?  Yay I can put that dictionary on my phone I've never seen that resource Ok I'm typing up/posting what I've learned so far. . . . I feel so educated now heheh *bows to drlukacs* |
|
|
|
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... So it boils down to whether or not 7 months is a reasonable delay in the tech industry. I've seen so many delays in tech industry that were sooo much longer. Is it even realistic to think that 7 months was a long time to wait for bleeding edge hardware development? It's starting to seem to me that the only thing we can claim is that communication were bungled, and that's not necessarily illegal, just embarrassing. |
|
|
|
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... lol ya that would be one wicked debate. . . drlukacs, one more thing I'm trying to understand, then I'm off to post. .. . the word repudiate. I didn't see anything in the definitions section that indicates anything that alters the common language definition the one I found that seems most applicable is "to refuse to acknowledge and pay (a debt)". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/repudiateIn this case, It seems to me, that the debt that needs acknowledgement are the funds/payment being held by bfl for delivery. Since they refunded the funds, it seems reasonable to me to think they did not repudiate. Am I thinking about this properly or is there some common legal ease that I'm missing here? Of course, a lawsuit could still be filed by anybody, but it seems that repudiate is not an issue in this case. 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? You are correct that I would not want to be a responsible party as that tangled web of disparate information was untangled. hehe ty again this is awesome info |
|
|
|
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... lol ya that would be one wicked debate. . . |
|
|
|
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.
Very good example. 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? 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. Additionially the wording on the site at the time of the order: http://web.archive.org/web/20120628113158/http://www.butterflylabs.com/order-form-bitforce-sc-single/Explicitly states: "currently scheduled for October" This wording in so vague and implies that the date will and can change. .. there is little room to say that they promised to deliver the products sooner and the buyer was unaware that it wasn't a risk factor |
|
|
|
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. . .
Thanks for your compliments. I believe there is a thread for legal discussion even on this forum, although there the focus might be more on taxation and regulatory matters, but it may be worth a try. If you would like to propose a topic title and a place to post it, I can try to act as a moderator, to ensure that only civilized and constructive postings are allowed. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with a view, but it is distracts from the main issue when people start getting personal and engage in ad hominem attacks. Sure thing, let me finish this research and come back with the input from some legal forums, we'll figure out how to address this topic in a constructive manner. I'll post something this evening and we can make a thread for the content and cross link it |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
can you show where it says they are not explicitly allowed to cancel the agreement?
I see where they can't "wrongfully" do it. . .but still haven't seen where it says they can't do it
UCC imposes a general obligation on both the seller and the buyer: General obligations of parties.
400.2-301. The obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver and that of the buyer is to accept and pay in accordance with the contract. Next, the rights of the buyers is described as follows (the underlining is mine): Buyer's remedies in general--buyer's security interest in rejected goods.
400.2-711. (1) Where the seller fails to make delivery or repudiates or the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance then with respect to any goods involved, and with respect to the whole if the breach goes to the whole contract (section 400.2-612), the buyer may cancel and whether or not he has done so may in addition to recovering so much of the price as has been paid
(a) "cover" and have damages under section 400.2-712 as to all the goods affected whether or not they have been identified to the contract; or
(b) recover damages for nondelivery as provided in this article (section 400.2-713).
(2) Where the seller fails to deliver or repudiates the buyer may also
(a) if the goods have been identified recover them as provided in this article (section 400.2-502); or
(b) in a proper case obtain specific performance or replevy the goods as provided in this article (section 400.2-716).
(3) On rightful rejection or justifiable revocation of acceptance a buyer has a security interest in goods in his possession or control for any payments made on their price and any expenses reasonably incurred in their inspection, receipt, transportation, care and custody and may hold such goods and resell them in like manner as an aggrieved seller (section 400.2-706). In other words, the right for damages exists simply due to failure to make delivery or repudiation of the contract. Dude you rock ty for jumping in. . . . and bringing information. . .let me spend a couple hours reading this stuff. . .and I'm searching for more information. I totally would love to talk more about it I really believe it's important to understand for me and everybody else that mines. 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. . . |
|
|
|
can you show where it says they are not explicitly allowed to cancel the agreement?
I see where they can't "wrongfully" do it. . .but still haven't seen where it says they can't do it
UCC imposes a general obligation on both the seller and the buyer: General obligations of parties.
400.2-301. The obligation of the seller is to transfer and deliver and that of the buyer is to accept and pay in accordance with the contract. Next, the rights of the buyers is described as follows (the underlining is mine): Buyer's remedies in general--buyer's security interest in rejected goods.
400.2-711. (1) Where the seller fails to make delivery or repudiates or the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance then with respect to any goods involved, and with respect to the whole if the breach goes to the whole contract (section 400.2-612), the buyer may cancel and whether or not he has done so may in addition to recovering so much of the price as has been paid
(a) "cover" and have damages under section 400.2-712 as to all the goods affected whether or not they have been identified to the contract; or
(b) recover damages for nondelivery as provided in this article (section 400.2-713).
(2) Where the seller fails to deliver or repudiates the buyer may also
(a) if the goods have been identified recover them as provided in this article (section 400.2-502); or
(b) in a proper case obtain specific performance or replevy the goods as provided in this article (section 400.2-716).
(3) On rightful rejection or justifiable revocation of acceptance a buyer has a security interest in goods in his possession or control for any payments made on their price and any expenses reasonably incurred in their inspection, receipt, transportation, care and custody and may hold such goods and resell them in like manner as an aggrieved seller (section 400.2-706). In other words, the right for damages exists simply due to failure to make delivery or repudiation of the contract. Dude you rock ty for jumping in. . . . and bringing information. . .let me spend a couple hours reading this stuff. . .and I'm searching for more information. I totally would love to talk more about it I really believe it's important to understand for me and everybody else that mines. |
|
|
|
"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. . . |
|
|
|
"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.HTMawesome thanks. . .I was in a different view at the time. . it only showed the pieces. . .thanks for the context can you show where it says they are not explicitly allowed to cancel the agreement? I see where they can't "wrongfully" do it. . .but still haven't seen where it says they can't do it I'll be looking through that version you linked.. it's much easier to read |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Yes I just linked it and previously linked it. . . and I have read that entire code |
|
|
|
Now on the point of rights of buyers under UCC: § 2-712. "Cover"; Buyer's Procurement of Substitute Goods.
(1) If the seller wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates or the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance, the buyer may "cover" by making in good faith and without unreasonable delay any reasonable purchase of or contract to purchase goods in substitution for those due from the seller.
(2) The buyer may recover from the seller as damages the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages as hereinafter defined (Section 2-715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.
(3) Failure of the buyer to effect cover within this section does not bar him from any other remedy.
§ 2-713. Buyer's Damages for Non-delivery or Repudiation.
(1) Subject to Section 2-723, if the seller wrongfully fails to deliver or repudiates or the buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance:
(a) the measure of damages in the case of wrongful failure to deliver by the seller or rightful rejection or justifiable revocation of acceptance by the buyer is the difference between the market price at the time for tender under the contract and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages under Section 2-715, but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach; and
(b) the measure of damages for repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the expiration of a commercially reasonable time after the buyer learned of the repudiation, but no later than the time stated in paragraph (a), and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages provided in this Article (Section 2--715), less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.
(2) Market price is to be determined as of the place for tender or, in cases of rejection after arrival or revocation of acceptance, as of the place of arrival. "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. (2) On termination 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. (3) Unless the contrary intention clearly appears, expressions of "cancellation", "rescission", or the like of the lease contract may not be construed as a renunciation or discharge of any claim in damages for an antecedent default. (4) Rights and remedies for material misrepresentation or fraud include all rights and remedies available under this Article for default. (5) Neither rescission nor a claim for rescission of the lease contract nor rejection or return of the goods may bar or be deemed inconsistent with a claim for damages or other right or remedy. |
|
|
|
[You can file in your local jurisdiction since Butterfly Labs sells online. Ask for damages of the difference between the market value of your forward contract to purchase BFL equipment and the amount you were refunded. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally terminated.
There is more to be claimed, actually, because were not talking about an item whose price simply increased over time, but rather means of production -- a tool that can generate revenue. It more akin to failing to deliver a car to a taxi cab licensee. It prevents the buyer from earning. You are correct, loss of revenue is certainly to be considered. He would need to consult a lawyer about it though. Holy crap k9quaint, I'll already went over the facts in UCC for missouri with you. I think you have a bad case of fish memory. drlukacs please go back and read before you run in all cowboy shooting your guns in the air yelling "Yeehaw! look at me I'm making points and stuff!" In the state of Missouri, once you cancel the implied contract and refund the money. All responsibilities of both parties are terminated. The only recourse after that is to PROVE prior breach of contract (before the cancellation). Since the product wasn't delivered yet. The only possible thing he could bring up is the delivery time. With the link I previously gave showing the archived version of the website, It clearly stated that October was the "Currently scheduled" date. This clearly makes the buyer aware that the date is not definitive, unless they lack basic reading comprehension. The final obligation for the seller is to let them know if/when the specification of the product changes, which they did through the forums and with the confirmation of the buyers desire to continue the purchase (the recent dialog that pops up). Now, you can be frustrated and angry and I can understand your emotions. You can't arbitrarily say they did something illegal. I have seen no supporting evidence of your claims. I only see that you are angry and want to hurt them. I'm supportive of expressing your feelings and emotions. I'm not supportive of some distorted, trumped up, vengeful misinformation campaign. I'm supportive of exploring consumer rights, as this is something all buyers should be aware of when purchasing products. I'm not supportive of making crap up because you "feel" like that's what the law should be. * this is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you feel you have an actual fact that disproves this is the law, by all means I'd love to explore it. Hello again Mr. Obvious Sockpuppet is Obvious. 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. BFL can be sued by Xian for the difference between the current value of that contract and the money they refunded to him. Xian should win effortlessly. UCC covers the sale of "future goods" (commonly referred to as pre-orders) as well. your just making things up again. ..bring some supporting law to the table and I'll take a look. If your right, the factual contribution is much appreciated As for your "sock puppet" claim. Firstly, your getting really boring with that. When people speak this way, I start to think of them as the type of person who would appear in a tinfoil hat tell me how microwaves are "mind control" devices. Secondly, my demeanor and approach to discussing this with you is vastly different from Josh's approach (right or wrong, couldn't care less). I feel a touch sad that I need to inform you that there are other people in the world that don't believe in your beliefs. And all of them but the actual "Josh" are not named Josh. Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. 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. BFL can be sued by Xian for the difference between the current value of that contract and the money they refunded to him. Xian should win effortlessly. Again bring a law to the table and lets take a look at it. . . keep claiming sock puppet, Its arbitrary and pointless. Only serves the purpose of misdirection on your part. If you want to imagine me being Josh, feel free. It doesn't change the discussion at all. 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 int30h 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. I will put no effort into proving my identity to you. I do not owe you that. I could care less. Also, I'm not the one who claimed "Implied Contract" and consumer protections in Missouri, you were. I only brought the actual facts and direct law of consumer protections (UCC) to the table, so we could talk about them and how they may or may not apply to what you were talking about. When that didn't pan out for you, you come back with new equally sure argument about "future contracts". I was hoping you would, in turn, do the leg work to show precisely the laws you are talking about. Instead, because I'm almost sure your not going to, I will once again figure out for you what you are talking about, so the community can evaluate the facts and educate our selves on what is and isn't protecting us when we purchase product. To clarify, I'm not fully claiming you are wrong on this. I'm just asking you bring it to the table with some facts, so we discern whether or not this is another statement of how you feel the law should be or if it's an actually applicable argument. In addition, anybody can register a complaint with AG against anybody within their jurisdiction. This is no way a proof of wrong doing. |
|
|
|
[You can file in your local jurisdiction since Butterfly Labs sells online. Ask for damages of the difference between the market value of your forward contract to purchase BFL equipment and the amount you were refunded. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally terminated.
There is more to be claimed, actually, because were not talking about an item whose price simply increased over time, but rather means of production -- a tool that can generate revenue. It more akin to failing to deliver a car to a taxi cab licensee. It prevents the buyer from earning. You are correct, loss of revenue is certainly to be considered. He would need to consult a lawyer about it though. Holy crap k9quaint, I'll already went over the facts in UCC for missouri with you. I think you have a bad case of fish memory. drlukacs please go back and read before you run in all cowboy shooting your guns in the air yelling "Yeehaw! look at me I'm making points and stuff!" In the state of Missouri, once you cancel the implied contract and refund the money. All responsibilities of both parties are terminated. The only recourse after that is to PROVE prior breach of contract (before the cancellation). Since the product wasn't delivered yet. The only possible thing he could bring up is the delivery time. With the link I previously gave showing the archived version of the website, It clearly stated that October was the "Currently scheduled" date. This clearly makes the buyer aware that the date is not definitive, unless they lack basic reading comprehension. The final obligation for the seller is to let them know if/when the specification of the product changes, which they did through the forums and with the confirmation of the buyers desire to continue the purchase (the recent dialog that pops up). Now, you can be frustrated and angry and I can understand your emotions. You can't arbitrarily say they did something illegal. I have seen no supporting evidence of your claims. I only see that you are angry and want to hurt them. I'm supportive of expressing your feelings and emotions. I'm not supportive of some distorted, trumped up, vengeful misinformation campaign. I'm supportive of exploring consumer rights, as this is something all buyers should be aware of when purchasing products. I'm not supportive of making crap up because you "feel" like that's what the law should be. * this is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you feel you have an actual fact that disproves this is the law, by all means I'd love to explore it. Hello again Mr. Obvious Sockpuppet is Obvious. 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. BFL can be sued by Xian for the difference between the current value of that contract and the money they refunded to him. Xian should win effortlessly. UCC covers the sale of "future goods" (commonly referred to as pre-orders) as well. your just making things up again. ..bring some supporting law to the table and I'll take a look. If your right, the factual contribution is much appreciated As for your "sock puppet" claim. Firstly, your getting really boring with that. When people speak this way, I start to think of them as the type of person who would appear in a tinfoil hat tell me how microwaves are "mind control" devices. Secondly, my demeanor and approach to discussing this with you is vastly different from Josh's approach (right or wrong, couldn't care less). I feel a touch sad that I need to inform you that there are other people in the world that don't believe in your beliefs. And all of them but the actual "Josh" are not named Josh. Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. 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. BFL can be sued by Xian for the difference between the current value of that contract and the money they refunded to him. Xian should win effortlessly. Again bring a law to the table and lets take a look at it. . . keep claiming sock puppet, Its arbitrary and pointless. Only serves the purpose of misdirection on your part. If you want to imagine me being Josh, feel free. It doesn't change the discussion at all. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
