Butterfly Labs Forced "On Hold For Refund" for all my Single SC orders

[int03h]

I am sorry I missed your point

Yep. I don't expect you to understand anything.

Over under on when int03h vanishes into the setting sun: 18 days.

I'll take the under  

You want to bet on that?

<EDIT> I don't understand because you don't make any fucking sense..  

Go put a bet on a bitcoin betting site. I don't do anything without escrow that involves people who only have posts dated from today.  
Of course I don't make sense to you. Nothing I type will ever make sense to you.

I am still waiting for your terms to the bet. You now have 17 days left .. tick tock douchebag.

[k9quaint]

I am sorry I missed your point

Yep. I don't expect you to understand anything.

Over under on when int03h vanishes into the setting sun: 18 days.

I'll take the under  

You want to bet on that?

<EDIT> I don't understand because you don't make any fucking sense..  

Go put a bet on a bitcoin betting site. I don't do anything without escrow that involves people who only have posts dated from today.  
Of course I don't make sense to you. Nothing I type will ever make sense to you.

I am still waiting for your terms to the bet. You now have 17 days left .. tick tock douchebag.

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.

[Endlessa]

[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 and 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.

[k9quaint]

[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.

[Endlessa]

[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.

[k9quaint]

[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.

[rograz]

Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious.

Some quality argumentative skills being displayed right there.

[k9quaint]

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.

[int03h]

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 .

[drlukacs]

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.


Edit: Just for the sake of consumer awareness, on a federal level, it is stated that by receiving a shipped product you are imply your acceptance of any changes to the specification.  From what I understand this, Missouri further states that there must be some form of direct/explicit communication.


* 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.

I am afraid that you misunderstand the law. You will find a copy of Article 2 of the UCC, dealing with contracts:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/

First, about difference between receipt and acceptance:

§ 2-512. Payment by Buyer Before Inspection.

(1) Where the contract requires payment before inspection non-conformity of the goods does not excuse the buyer from so making payment unless

(a) the non-conformity appears without inspection;  or

(b) despite tender of the required documents the circumstances would justify injunction against honor under this Act (Section 5-109(b)).

(2) Payment pursuant to subsection (1) does not constitute an acceptance of goods or impair the buyer's right to inspect or any of his remedies.

§ 2-513. Buyer's Right to Inspection of Goods.

(1) Unless otherwise agreed and subject to subsection (3), where goods are tendered or delivered or identified to the contract for sale, the buyer has a right before payment or acceptance to inspect them at any reasonable place and time and in any reasonable manner.  When the seller is required or authorized to send the goods to the buyer, the inspection may be after their arrival.

Look also at "§ 2-606. What Constitutes Acceptance of Goods."

[drlukacs]

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.

[Endlessa]

[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.

[k9quaint]

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.

[k9quaint]

[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.

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. You should probably pick one account and stick with it so I don't have to answer you twice.

[int03h]

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...

And since you insist on remove the quoted text that specifies your accusations and is determined to make a point : Quote from: int03h on Today at 05:07:00 PM

Quote from: k9quaint on May 25, 2013, 10:10:32 PM
Go put a bet on a bitcoin betting site. I don't do anything without escrow that involves people who only have posts dated from today.  Cheesy
Of course I don't make sense to you. Nothing I type will ever make sense to you.

[k9quaint]

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.

[int03h]

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.

[Endlessa]

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.

[drlukacs]

Here are also the Missouri UCC provisions:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c400.htm

You may wish to look up the following:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/4000020713.HTM

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/4000020715.HTM


I could find nothing here stating that a seller can be off the hook by a simple refund. Can you?

[Endlessa]

Here are also the Missouri UCC provisions:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c400.htm

You may wish to look up the following:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/4000020713.HTM

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/4000020715.HTM


I could find nothing here stating that a seller can be off the hook by a simple refund. Can you?

Yes I just linked it and previously linked it. . . and I have read that entire code