This thread has really taken off since I last posted!  There is a lot of information in this thread, some of it correct.

I think the best way to explain the BFL situation from a legal perspective is by using a fact pattern (lawyers love fact patterns).

MSantori buys a widget from Widgetco for $100. Widgetco's website says: "We don't know when you'll get your widget, but we promise we'll ship widgets when we receive them from the manufacturer, and in the order in which we sold them. All sales are final."

If, a month after purchase, Widgetco refuses to ship its widget to Msantori, and instead "cancel's" Msantori's order, then Widgetco is in breach of a material term of the contract.  MSantori's was probably not a contract "absent a specific time provision" There was a specific provision as to time: "when we receive them from the manufacturer, and in the order in which we sold them."

WidgetCo would be liable to MSantori for his "expectancy damages": the value that MSantori would have realized but for the breach.  What would MSantori have if not for Widgetco's breach?  At the very least, he'd have a widget.  How can MSantori get a widget now?  Well, if a widget now costs $200, then the measure of MSantori's expectency damages is at least $200.

Next up: What else can MSantori get besides the $200?  Can he also get the value of all of the money he would have made from the widget?

If you read (2), it refers not simply to successive deliveries, but an indefinite contract (i.e., subscription): "If the contract provides for successive performances but is indefinite in duration"

This is clearly not the case that we are discussing here.

He meant you dude.

here's another interesting  section that may (contradiction is invited) address preorder.

I read this as, barring some huge unfair burden ("its operation would be unconscionable") or it occurring on some some agreed upon event (delivery of product, in the case of pre-order).  With some kind of "resonable notification" (email or snail mail or forum post), unless other wise specified (SLA or delivery contract or Term/conditions) a seller could terminate the contract.  One of the only ways, I think, that this could be argued against would be if the business unilaterally terminated all contracts of sale in an effort to utilize this as a "loop hole".

Can we please stop feeding the trolls, please.

So .. your terms are : 
If I am here for 18 days or more then you will pay me 10BTC?
I will add to that .. that I am not a sock puppet and I will prove it to you on day 18.

Clarify if any of these terms are unacceptable.

Counter increased by 1.

And yet you avoid actually making the bet. Add one to your abacus labeled int03h's posts.

After reading all the bashing here in the forums, some from competitor trolls, and some from customers, this seems more like an angry customer at walmart demanding a full refund on their toaster after ten years of use. Where did that community spirit go?

I have to admit it's a lot of fun to read all these elaborate posts here, serious posts mixed with jokes and one-liners. What makes it even more fun is that there is some truth to it, humor at best. I only wish that it was kept on that level, and not turn into something destructive making it even harder for BFL reach "our" goal. Yes, being a customer in a community driven project it is in "our" interest they are successful, it's not their responsibility alone.

This reposted for YipYap since his ADD seems to be fucking with his short term memory . It is not self appointed it was a direct challenge.

Endlessa posted the questions here:

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159009&p=713115

Feel free to review the case they posted and see if they actually did a good job of posing all the questions (with relevant material) attached.

The results sound fairly biased but who knows.

Incidental damages resulting from the seller's breach include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation and care and custody of goods rightfully rejected, any commercially reasonable charges, expenses or commissions in connection with effecting cover and any other reasonable expense incident to the delay or other breach.

(2) Consequential damages resulting from the seller's breach include

(a) any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise; and
(b) injury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty.

Its not only newbies falling for it :/ People (including me, historically) get blinded by money.

In a way you could work off liklihood of scam, potential return and hedge your bets, but any money to scammers is too much.

In the same vein:

Lets assume that X's grounds for suit is valid in it's premise. (which imo it isn't).
Lets assume that X would win the suit.
Lets assume that BFL gets a judgement it can afford to pay.

So BFL pays X, his lawyer takes a good portion of it... everything is settled.

Now instead of assuming BFL pays him, lets look at what happens if they either honestly can't afford to pay him... or decide to use him as an excuse to roll up shop. Now they're declaring bankruptcy...

X gets paid some or all of his damages award and shortly afterwards all the other other pre-order customers who will never get a product file civil suits against X for depriving them of a working product which BFL would have been able to provide eventually if he hadn't put them out of business. Does X's previous award cover the potential damages from nobody else getting the product?

That's why this whole thing is based on a false premise.

There wasn't a forward contract for the simple reason that there isn't anything in the pre-order paperwork that specifies it as a forward contract. Modifications to a 'standard' must be specified. In this case they weren't. The standard repudiation for any sort of failed sales contract (except forward contract) is a return of the purchased item combined with a refund  of the purchase price (for a very good reason). You cannot legally compel an entity to provide a good or service to customer who they don't want to provide that good or service to.

Now if his place in line had been moved down... and that had led to his asshattery and refund that might be a different story, in this example he would be able to recover damages from them moving his place in line... but still not from the refund.

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.

Yes I sleep and have a life. Speed read the posts and found little of interest.

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.