Black Miner - ASIC Bitcoin Mining Hardware

[Powell]

The only person liable is Hashfast if that were the case.  There obviously was a request made for chips and I'm about 99.9% sure during any conversation was Black Miner telling Hashfast man screw the customer give us chips first.  Also Hashfast is US based correct?  Black Miner is located in Romania so then it becomes international for any group with an attorney already.

Back to my point who all owned Avalon 55nm setups here?  How many manufactures alone got dicked over on that deal yet nobody cared running the loads of clones from China.

[RoadStress]

Google 'torturous interference' to get a clue of the world of hurt you are heading for.

You are talking about like we forced them to sell the ASICs. Also, I repeat and please remember that we only have the ASICs from them and we produce our own PCBs.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).

Thanks!

Ask your lawyer how it pertains to you taking delivery of chips ahead of people with contracts for delivery before you from Hashfast.

It's not their fault. HashFast can do whatever they with with their chips. It's not BE's responsability and duty to verify where are the chips coming from. A judge can only decide if HashFast acted in good faith or not when they sold customer's chips to BE, but BE has 0 guilt.

[dogie]

Google 'torturous interference' to get a clue of the world of hurt you are heading for.

You are talking about like we forced them to sell the ASICs. Also, I repeat and please remember that we only have the ASICs from them and we produce our own PCBs.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).

Thanks!

Ask your lawyer how it pertains to you taking delivery of chips ahead of people with contracts for delivery before you from Hashfast.

It's not their fault. HashFast can do whatever they with with their chips. It's not BE's responsability and duty to verify where are the chips coming from. A judge can only decide if HashFast acted in good faith or not when they sold customer's chips to BE, but BE has 0 guilt.

This, its not difficult.

[Entropy-uc]

Google 'torturous interference' to get a clue of the world of hurt you are heading for.

You are talking about like we forced them to sell the ASICs. Also, I repeat and please remember that we only have the ASICs from them and we produce our own PCBs.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).

Thanks!

Ask your lawyer how it pertains to you taking delivery of chips ahead of people with contracts for delivery before you from Hashfast.

It's not their fault. HashFast can do whatever they with with their chips. It's not BE's responsability and duty to verify where are the chips coming from. A judge can only decide if HashFast acted in good faith or not when they sold customer's chips to BE, but BE has 0 guilt.

This, its not difficult.

You are both wrong.  If Black miner, or MrTeal take delivery of chips knowing that they are being diverted from customers owed delivery ahead of them they become liable under the legal principle of torturous interference.  That makes them party to any judgements against hashfast, and could expose them to unlimited liability in the process.

[RoadStress]

Google 'torturous interference' to get a clue of the world of hurt you are heading for.

You are talking about like we forced them to sell the ASICs. Also, I repeat and please remember that we only have the ASICs from them and we produce our own PCBs.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).

Thanks!

Ask your lawyer how it pertains to you taking delivery of chips ahead of people with contracts for delivery before you from Hashfast.

It's not their fault. HashFast can do whatever they with with their chips. It's not BE's responsability and duty to verify where are the chips coming from. A judge can only decide if HashFast acted in good faith or not when they sold customer's chips to BE, but BE has 0 guilt.

This, its not difficult.

You are both wrong.  If Black miner, or MrTeal take delivery of chips knowing that they are being diverted from customers owed delivery ahead of them they become liable under the legal principle of torturous interference.  That makes them party to any judgements against hashfast, and could expose them to unlimited liability in the process.

What i was saying? How can they really (100%) know that the chips are diverted from customers? They have no means of checking. Or at least i can't see one. A good and well informed judge can decide that with proper subpoenas, but BE can't prove/check anything.

Edit: Please tell me how can BE know "beyond reasonable doubt" that HashFail is selling them customers chips.

[dogie]

Google 'torturous interference' to get a clue of the world of hurt you are heading for.

You are talking about like we forced them to sell the ASICs. Also, I repeat and please remember that we only have the ASICs from them and we produce our own PCBs.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).

Thanks!

Ask your lawyer how it pertains to you taking delivery of chips ahead of people with contracts for delivery before you from Hashfast.

It's not their fault. HashFast can do whatever they with with their chips. It's not BE's responsability and duty to verify where are the chips coming from. A judge can only decide if HashFast acted in good faith or not when they sold customer's chips to BE, but BE has 0 guilt.

This, its not difficult.

You are both wrong.  If Black miner, or MrTeal take delivery of chips knowing that they are being diverted from customers owed delivery ahead of them they become liable under the legal principle of torturous interference.  That makes them party to any judgements against hashfast, and could expose them to unlimited liability in the process.

What i was saying? How can they really (100%) know that the chips are diverted from customers? They have no means of checking. Or at least i can't see one. A good and well informed judge can decide that with proper subpoenas, but BE can't prove/check anything.

Edit: Please tell me how can BE know "beyond reasonable doubt" that HashFail is selling them customers chips.

And then even if they did know it was 'other customers chips', that doesn't create any liability. The order queue is none of their business, unless they actively paid more with the discussion that they could skip the queue.

[arlekyn13]

Just to make sure, the other paying customers ordered chips or full miners? They are different products listed with different prices. By the way, not taking anyone's part here, but I hardly believe BE will hold any responsibility for HF misbehavior, no matter how many trials will be won against HF.

[seriouscoin]

Google 'torturous interference' to get a clue of the world of hurt you are heading for.

You are talking about like we forced them to sell the ASICs. Also, I repeat and please remember that we only have the ASICs from them and we produce our own PCBs.

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).

Thanks!

Ask your lawyer how it pertains to you taking delivery of chips ahead of people with contracts for delivery before you from Hashfast.

It's not their fault. HashFast can do whatever they with with their chips. It's not BE's responsability and duty to verify where are the chips coming from. A judge can only decide if HashFast acted in good faith or not when they sold customer's chips to BE, but BE has 0 guilt.

This, its not difficult.

You are both wrong.  If Black miner, or MrTeal take delivery of chips knowing that they are being diverted from customers owed delivery ahead of them they become liable under the legal principle of torturous interference.  That makes them party to any judgements against hashfast, and could expose them to unlimited liability in the process.

What i was saying? How can they really (100%) know that the chips are diverted from customers? They have no means of checking. Or at least i can't see one. A good and well informed judge can decide that with proper subpoenas, but BE can't prove/check anything.

Edit: Please tell me how can BE know "beyond reasonable doubt" that HashFail is selling them customers chips.

And then even if they did know it was 'other customers chips', that doesn't create any liability. The order queue is none of their business, unless they actively paid more with the discussion that they could skip the queue.

dogie.... you really remind me of the grandpa's saying.

Its the court of law and not the court of justice.

So even what you're saying fit perfectly under law, its against what i believe. I'm sure i'm the only one here.... everyone only cares about money.

[BlackElectronics]

Due to the large number off-topic replies in this forum thread we had taken the action to open our own forum.

Forum Link: http://blackminer.com/forum/

If a moderator sees this post, we would like to kindly ask him to close this topic. We will not reply here anymore...

[SVK]

^^ Good choice.

[jegersmart]

Due to the large number off-topic replies in this forum thread we had taken the action to open our own forum.

Forum Link: http://blackminer.com/forum/

If a moderator sees this post, we would like to kindly ask him to close this topic. We will not reply here anymore...

well done trolls....^^

[cedivad]

How are they gonna promote their products for free without this forum?
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #RboKT1vVJ7hXZfs9