Bitcoin Forum
January 23, 2019, 07:13:37 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Miners, Consumer Protections (UCC), and Pre-orders  (Read 6611 times)
Endlessa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 27, 2013, 01:07:51 AM
Last edit: May 28, 2013, 01:31:54 PM by Endlessa
 #1

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 Smiley

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_warranty

This 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_Code

This provides a framework that is implemented in each state's localized law:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/ucc.html

Generally 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?
Quote
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:

Quote
to indicate an intention not to perform.


Ok here are the key points and code of law bits I understand to be relevant:


Quote
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).


Quote
§ 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.)

Quote
§ 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:

Quote

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

Quote

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 Smiley finally a good question Smiley feeling much better now

Quote

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 Smiley ( found this surprisingly close to home as I just told the customer was expressing frustration in the community forums)

Quote

Endlessa: Does cancellation alleviate any future obligation of the company?

Greater Mind: Yes.


Well that was short and concise.

Other comments of interest

Quote

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 Section
Another bit of code we are beginning to explore and I'm hoping to get verification of relevance:

Quote
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#msg2286577


Another interesting bit of code:

Quote

§ 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#msg2288560


Additional article on Buyer and Seller Obligations to consider:  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Seller's+Obligations


I will do my best to keep this updated.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1548270817
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548270817

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1548270817
Reply with quote  #2

1548270817
Report to moderator
1548270817
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548270817

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1548270817
Reply with quote  #2

1548270817
Report to moderator
firefop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 27, 2013, 01:21:20 AM
 #2

Thank you for the well researched post! These are becoming a rare thing on these forums.

I would like to add that the damages incurred can be very difficult to prove when a firm delivery date isn't specified. So unless the buyer actually purchased another product to cover lack of delivery I don't see how someone would be able to prove damage. It's also my understanding that this purchase would have to be effectively mandated by lack of delivery rather than a choice made by the buyer. The example would be a contract to purchase flour (the buyer runs a bakery) and when the seller doesn't deliver the baker would have to get expedited delivery of flour from another source.

drlukacs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 27, 2013, 01:41:18 AM
 #3

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.

           ▄▄██████████▄▄
       ▄██████████████████▄
    ▄██████▀▀  ▄▄▄▄  ▀▀██████▄
   █████▀ ▄▄██████████▄▄ ▀█████
  ████▀ ▄████████████████▄ ▀████
████▀ ▄██████████▌  ██████ ▀█████
█████ ██████████▀  ████████▄ ████
████▌ ██  ▄▄  ▀    █▀▀▀█████ ▐███
████▌ ███████         ▄▄ ▐██ ▐███
▐████ ▐██████        ██████▌ ████
█████  ██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀ █████
  █████▄ ▀██████████████▀ ▄█████
    ██████▄ ▀▀▀████▀▀▀ ▄██████
     ▀████████▄▄▄▄▄▄████████▀
        ▀▀██████████████▀▀
            ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
EOSJacks.com
The Decentralized EOS Gaming Platform
.





..





.        ▄▄██▄ ▄███▀▀ ▄
       ▀   ▐█████▄▄▄
           ▐██████▀▀▀▌
      ▄▄▄█▀▀▀▀▀██▄   ▀
    ▄▀            ▀▄
  ▄█                ▀▄
 █                   █▄
▐                     ▐
█  ▄██▀█       ▄█▀█    ▌
█  ▀███▀      ▀███▀    █
█                      ▌
█       █▄▄█▄▄▌        ▌
█    ▄   ▐▒▒▒▒▌   ▄    ▌
▄▀▄▄   ▌ ▐▒▒▒▒▌ ▐   ▄▄▀▄
▌     ▄▌  █▒▒█  ▐▄      ▌
 ▌▄▄▄▀    █▒▒█    ▀▄▄▄▄▌
 █         ▀▀         █
 ▐                    ▌
  ▌                   ▌
  █                  █
   █      ▀▀▀▀      █
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
[].





.MEDIUM
TWITTER
TELEGRAM
drlukacs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 27, 2013, 01:42:36 AM
 #4

I would like to add that the damages incurred can be very difficult to prove when a firm delivery date isn't specified.

I respectfully disagree. A 5 Gh/s miner has a calculable number of BTC that it can generate per month, and since BTC has a value (can be sold at an exchange), there is a clear monetary loss, and so one can prove consequential damages rather easily.

           ▄▄██████████▄▄
       ▄██████████████████▄
    ▄██████▀▀  ▄▄▄▄  ▀▀██████▄
   █████▀ ▄▄██████████▄▄ ▀█████
  ████▀ ▄████████████████▄ ▀████
████▀ ▄██████████▌  ██████ ▀█████
█████ ██████████▀  ████████▄ ████
████▌ ██  ▄▄  ▀    █▀▀▀█████ ▐███
████▌ ███████         ▄▄ ▐██ ▐███
▐████ ▐██████        ██████▌ ████
█████  ██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀ █████
  █████▄ ▀██████████████▀ ▄█████
    ██████▄ ▀▀▀████▀▀▀ ▄██████
     ▀████████▄▄▄▄▄▄████████▀
        ▀▀██████████████▀▀
            ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
EOSJacks.com
The Decentralized EOS Gaming Platform
.





..





.        ▄▄██▄ ▄███▀▀ ▄
       ▀   ▐█████▄▄▄
           ▐██████▀▀▀▌
      ▄▄▄█▀▀▀▀▀██▄   ▀
    ▄▀            ▀▄
  ▄█                ▀▄
 █                   █▄
▐                     ▐
█  ▄██▀█       ▄█▀█    ▌
█  ▀███▀      ▀███▀    █
█                      ▌
█       █▄▄█▄▄▌        ▌
█    ▄   ▐▒▒▒▒▌   ▄    ▌
▄▀▄▄   ▌ ▐▒▒▒▒▌ ▐   ▄▄▀▄
▌     ▄▌  █▒▒█  ▐▄      ▌
 ▌▄▄▄▀    █▒▒█    ▀▄▄▄▄▌
 █         ▀▀         █
 ▐                    ▌
  ▌                   ▌
  █                  █
   █      ▀▀▀▀      █
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
[].





.MEDIUM
TWITTER
TELEGRAM
k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 27, 2013, 01:44:13 AM
 #5

The standard restitution for breach of forward contract is paying the market price for the contract, or providing comparable goods.

To parse the section that explains the damages for the breach of contract:

(a) the measure of damages
How much is owed.

in the case of wrongful failure to deliver by the seller or rightful rejection or justifiable revocation of acceptance by the buyer
If the seller does not produce the goods, or the buyer rejects the goods as delivered (defective, wrong goods, etc)

is the difference between the market price at the time for tender under the contract and the contract price
What the goods are worth now minus what the goods were worth when purchased. In this case 'tender' means delivery. The delivery was roughly $5K cash. The buyer is making a "rightful rejection" of that delivery.

together with any incidental or consequential damages under Section 2-715, but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach; and

This refers to the following section of the UCC:
Quote
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.


BFL can proactively decide not to do business with Xian. However, after having done business with him and entering a contract with him, the time for their right to refuse has come and gone.

Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
drlukacs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 27, 2013, 01:49:48 AM
 #6

BFL can proactively decide not to do business with Xian. However, after having done business with him and entering a contract with him, the time for their right to refuse has come and gone.

Thank you for explaining the law in simple terms.

           ▄▄██████████▄▄
       ▄██████████████████▄
    ▄██████▀▀  ▄▄▄▄  ▀▀██████▄
   █████▀ ▄▄██████████▄▄ ▀█████
  ████▀ ▄████████████████▄ ▀████
████▀ ▄██████████▌  ██████ ▀█████
█████ ██████████▀  ████████▄ ████
████▌ ██  ▄▄  ▀    █▀▀▀█████ ▐███
████▌ ███████         ▄▄ ▐██ ▐███
▐████ ▐██████        ██████▌ ████
█████  ██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀ █████
  █████▄ ▀██████████████▀ ▄█████
    ██████▄ ▀▀▀████▀▀▀ ▄██████
     ▀████████▄▄▄▄▄▄████████▀
        ▀▀██████████████▀▀
            ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
EOSJacks.com
The Decentralized EOS Gaming Platform
.





..





.        ▄▄██▄ ▄███▀▀ ▄
       ▀   ▐█████▄▄▄
           ▐██████▀▀▀▌
      ▄▄▄█▀▀▀▀▀██▄   ▀
    ▄▀            ▀▄
  ▄█                ▀▄
 █                   █▄
▐                     ▐
█  ▄██▀█       ▄█▀█    ▌
█  ▀███▀      ▀███▀    █
█                      ▌
█       █▄▄█▄▄▌        ▌
█    ▄   ▐▒▒▒▒▌   ▄    ▌
▄▀▄▄   ▌ ▐▒▒▒▒▌ ▐   ▄▄▀▄
▌     ▄▌  █▒▒█  ▐▄      ▌
 ▌▄▄▄▀    █▒▒█    ▀▄▄▄▄▌
 █         ▀▀         █
 ▐                    ▌
  ▌                   ▌
  █                  █
   █      ▀▀▀▀      █
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
[].





.MEDIUM
TWITTER
TELEGRAM
PuertoLibre
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


Free crypto every 60 mins here: discord.gg/pXB9nuZ


View Profile
May 27, 2013, 02:21:22 AM
 #7

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.



      ▄████████████▄
    ▄████████████████▄
   ██████▀       ▀████▄       ▄▄                 ▄▄▄
  █████           █████    ▐████                ▐████
 ██████         ▄█████     ████▌                █████
 ██████         █████     ▐████  ▄▄▄           ▐████▌   ▄██▄
  ██████▄               ▄▄██████████           █████  ▄████▀
   ████████▄       ▄▄█████████████▀  ▄▄▄▄      ████▌▄████▀  ▄▄████▄
     ▀█████████▄   ███████████▀▀  ▄████████▄  ▐████████▀  ▄█████████
        ▀█████████▄ ▀▀▀ ▐████▌   █████▀ ████  ███████▀   █████▀ ▀███
      ▄▄▄   ▀███████▄   █████   █████  ▄███  ▐███████   █████  ▄███▀
   ▄██████     ▀█████  ▐████▌   ████   ████  ████████▄  ████████▀
  ██████▀       █████  █████  ▄█████ ▄█████▄██████████▄ ▀█████  ▄██▄
 █████▀        ▄█████  ▐██████████████████████████ ████▄ ▀█████████▀       ▄████▄  ▄████▄  ██▄██▄██▄
 █████       ▄▄█████▀   ▀▀███▀   ▀▀██▀  ▀██▀ ▀██▀   ████▄  ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▄▄      ██▀     ██▀  ▀██ ██  ██  ██
 ██████▄▄▄████████▀                                  █████▄▄▄▄▄▄████ ▄██▄ ██▄     ██▄  ▄██ ██  ██  ██
  ▀█████████████▀                                     ▀▀█████████▀▀  ▀██▀  ▀████▀  ▀████▀  ██  ██  ██
    ▀▀█████▀▀


██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██

             ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄
     ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀        ▀▄▄▄▄
▄▀▀▀▀                 █   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄
█   ▄▀▀▄              ▀▄          █
 █  █▀▀█    ██▄        █          █
 ▀▄        ▐████▄       █        █
  █        ███████▄     ▀▄       █
   █      ▐████████      █       █
   ▀▄      ▀██████▌       █     █
    █        ▀████        ▀▄    █
     █         ▀█▌   █▄▄█  █    █
     ▀▄              ▀▄▄▀   █  █
      █                 ▄▄▄▀▀  █
       █        ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀       █
       ▀▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▀


██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██



██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██


«
«
«

»
»
»
k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 27, 2013, 02:37:30 AM
 #8

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.

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.  Roll Eyes

Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
drlukacs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 27, 2013, 02:43:30 AM
 #9

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.

The act of purchase was glossed over. He also did not mention that the market value of the goods had risen in the intervening time, nor did he mention that full price was paid for goods that did not yet exist. It was not an order, or reservation, or deposit. It was a full purchase.

It got so far only a single response.

You are quite right that the act of payment/purchase is omitted, and furthermore, that the "expert" seems to have overlooked the applicable provisions of UCC.

           ▄▄██████████▄▄
       ▄██████████████████▄
    ▄██████▀▀  ▄▄▄▄  ▀▀██████▄
   █████▀ ▄▄██████████▄▄ ▀█████
  ████▀ ▄████████████████▄ ▀████
████▀ ▄██████████▌  ██████ ▀█████
█████ ██████████▀  ████████▄ ████
████▌ ██  ▄▄  ▀    █▀▀▀█████ ▐███
████▌ ███████         ▄▄ ▐██ ▐███
▐████ ▐██████        ██████▌ ████
█████  ██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀ █████
  █████▄ ▀██████████████▀ ▄█████
    ██████▄ ▀▀▀████▀▀▀ ▄██████
     ▀████████▄▄▄▄▄▄████████▀
        ▀▀██████████████▀▀
            ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
EOSJacks.com
The Decentralized EOS Gaming Platform
.





..





.        ▄▄██▄ ▄███▀▀ ▄
       ▀   ▐█████▄▄▄
           ▐██████▀▀▀▌
      ▄▄▄█▀▀▀▀▀██▄   ▀
    ▄▀            ▀▄
  ▄█                ▀▄
 █                   █▄
▐                     ▐
█  ▄██▀█       ▄█▀█    ▌
█  ▀███▀      ▀███▀    █
█                      ▌
█       █▄▄█▄▄▌        ▌
█    ▄   ▐▒▒▒▒▌   ▄    ▌
▄▀▄▄   ▌ ▐▒▒▒▒▌ ▐   ▄▄▀▄
▌     ▄▌  █▒▒█  ▐▄      ▌
 ▌▄▄▄▀    █▒▒█    ▀▄▄▄▄▌
 █         ▀▀         █
 ▐                    ▌
  ▌                   ▌
  █                  █
   █      ▀▀▀▀      █
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
[].





.MEDIUM
TWITTER
TELEGRAM
MSantori
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 27, 2013, 04:51:22 AM
 #10

I am impressed with your close analysis of the UCC!  Unfortunately, you took a couple wrong turns. As a threshold matter, the UCC is not a federal code.  It is a uniform set of laws enacted to a greater or lesser extent in many states.  Also, it may not even be relevant here.  I'm happy to help guide you through from the beginning if you're truly interested in getting the correct answer.

Let's begin like this:

Ignore the UCC for the moment.  Cut and paste the text of the specific terms of the contract you entered into with BFL.  When you purchased your hardware, did you ever click "I agree to terms and conditions" or something of the like?  If so, that's your starting point.  The express written agreement of the parties overrides the UCC in almost all instances, so let's start there.

Second: Having read the conversation in your link, it seems the complaint with BFL is that it unilaterally cancelled your order. If that is the case, then you are trying to answer the question "was BFL's cancellation of your order a breach of the contract, and if it was, what is the measure of damages."  This will be very important going forward.

Looking forward to seeing your response!

Marco Santori is a lawyer, but not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.  If you do have specific questions, though, please don't hesitate to PM me.  We've learned this forum isn't 100% secure, so you might prefer to email me.  Maybe I can help!  Depending upon your jurisdiction, this post might be construed as attorney advertising, so: attorney advertising Smiley
drlukacs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 27, 2013, 06:13:19 AM
 #11

I am impressed with your close analysis of the UCC!  Unfortunately, you took a couple wrong turns. As a threshold matter, the UCC is not a federal code.  It is a uniform set of laws enacted to a greater or lesser extent in many states.  Also, it may not even be relevant here.  I'm happy to help guide you through from the beginning if you're truly interested in getting the correct answer.

I was never claiming that UCC is a federal code. Rather, for the sake of the discussion, we were looking at Missouri's UCC, because that is where the member who has a complaint lives, and that was the agreed place of delivery for the goods. This was the original thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=207331.900

If you would like to check the (very brief Smiley ) terms and conditions of BFL, I suggest that you visit their site (https://products.butterflylabs.com/) and have a look at the information displayed before one places an order.


           ▄▄██████████▄▄
       ▄██████████████████▄
    ▄██████▀▀  ▄▄▄▄  ▀▀██████▄
   █████▀ ▄▄██████████▄▄ ▀█████
  ████▀ ▄████████████████▄ ▀████
████▀ ▄██████████▌  ██████ ▀█████
█████ ██████████▀  ████████▄ ████
████▌ ██  ▄▄  ▀    █▀▀▀█████ ▐███
████▌ ███████         ▄▄ ▐██ ▐███
▐████ ▐██████        ██████▌ ████
█████  ██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀ █████
  █████▄ ▀██████████████▀ ▄█████
    ██████▄ ▀▀▀████▀▀▀ ▄██████
     ▀████████▄▄▄▄▄▄████████▀
        ▀▀██████████████▀▀
            ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
EOSJacks.com
The Decentralized EOS Gaming Platform
.





..





.        ▄▄██▄ ▄███▀▀ ▄
       ▀   ▐█████▄▄▄
           ▐██████▀▀▀▌
      ▄▄▄█▀▀▀▀▀██▄   ▀
    ▄▀            ▀▄
  ▄█                ▀▄
 █                   █▄
▐                     ▐
█  ▄██▀█       ▄█▀█    ▌
█  ▀███▀      ▀███▀    █
█                      ▌
█       █▄▄█▄▄▌        ▌
█    ▄   ▐▒▒▒▒▌   ▄    ▌
▄▀▄▄   ▌ ▐▒▒▒▒▌ ▐   ▄▄▀▄
▌     ▄▌  █▒▒█  ▐▄      ▌
 ▌▄▄▄▀    █▒▒█    ▀▄▄▄▄▌
 █         ▀▀         █
 ▐                    ▌
  ▌                   ▌
  █                  █
   █      ▀▀▀▀      █
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
[].





.MEDIUM
TWITTER
TELEGRAM
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1011


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
May 27, 2013, 07:32:53 AM
 #12

Thinking about suing?

Thinking about hurting Sonny Vleisides at BFL?

Think again!

http://www.martindale.com/Gregory-W-Vleisides/1035415-lawyer.htm

Quote
Vleisides Donnelly & O'Leary
4006 Central, 2nd Fl.
Kansas City, MO 64153-1155
centove
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 194
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 27, 2013, 12:04:49 PM
 #13


Ignore the UCC for the moment.  Cut and paste the text of the specific terms of the contract you entered into with BFL.  When you purchased your hardware, did you ever click "I agree to terms and conditions" or something of the like?  If so, that's your starting point.  The express written agreement of the parties overrides the UCC in almost all instances, so let's start there.

Looking forward to seeing your response!

This is where the issue becomes, there is no written contract, it's implied, retail sale of goods implication. So in this instance it would be up to the court to make the aggrieved party whole. How would they do that? By ordering the refund of the purchase price. This has been done so what other remedy is available?

Give me Btc: 1BRkf5bwSVdGCyvu4SyYBiJjEjbNiAQoYd Mine on my node: http://ask.gxsnmp.org:9332/
drlukacs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 27, 2013, 02:58:18 PM
 #14

Thinking about suing?

Thinking about hurting Sonny Vleisides at BFL?

Think again!

http://www.martindale.com/Gregory-W-Vleisides/1035415-lawyer.htm

Quote
Vleisides Donnelly & O'Leary
4006 Central, 2nd Fl.
Kansas City, MO 64153-1155

Nobody was talking about hurting anyone. That would be illegal.

Suing, though, is a different matter. It is great that Sonny and/or BFL may already have retained counsel (as it appears). Perhaps some of this discussion should be sent to them.


           ▄▄██████████▄▄
       ▄██████████████████▄
    ▄██████▀▀  ▄▄▄▄  ▀▀██████▄
   █████▀ ▄▄██████████▄▄ ▀█████
  ████▀ ▄████████████████▄ ▀████
████▀ ▄██████████▌  ██████ ▀█████
█████ ██████████▀  ████████▄ ████
████▌ ██  ▄▄  ▀    █▀▀▀█████ ▐███
████▌ ███████         ▄▄ ▐██ ▐███
▐████ ▐██████        ██████▌ ████
█████  ██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀ █████
  █████▄ ▀██████████████▀ ▄█████
    ██████▄ ▀▀▀████▀▀▀ ▄██████
     ▀████████▄▄▄▄▄▄████████▀
        ▀▀██████████████▀▀
            ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
EOSJacks.com
The Decentralized EOS Gaming Platform
.





..





.        ▄▄██▄ ▄███▀▀ ▄
       ▀   ▐█████▄▄▄
           ▐██████▀▀▀▌
      ▄▄▄█▀▀▀▀▀██▄   ▀
    ▄▀            ▀▄
  ▄█                ▀▄
 █                   █▄
▐                     ▐
█  ▄██▀█       ▄█▀█    ▌
█  ▀███▀      ▀███▀    █
█                      ▌
█       █▄▄█▄▄▌        ▌
█    ▄   ▐▒▒▒▒▌   ▄    ▌
▄▀▄▄   ▌ ▐▒▒▒▒▌ ▐   ▄▄▀▄
▌     ▄▌  █▒▒█  ▐▄      ▌
 ▌▄▄▄▀    █▒▒█    ▀▄▄▄▄▌
 █         ▀▀         █
 ▐                    ▌
  ▌                   ▌
  █                  █
   █      ▀▀▀▀      █
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
[].





.MEDIUM
TWITTER
TELEGRAM
drlukacs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 27, 2013, 03:00:53 PM
 #15

This is where the issue becomes, there is no written contract, it's implied, retail sale of goods implication. So in this instance it would be up to the court to make the aggrieved party whole. How would they do that? By ordering the refund of the purchase price. This has been done so what other remedy is available?

I suggest that you review our past discussion on Missouri UCC. There are number of other heading of damages that can be sought in the case of breach of contract: "cover" costs, consequential damages, incidental damages, etc.

           ▄▄██████████▄▄
       ▄██████████████████▄
    ▄██████▀▀  ▄▄▄▄  ▀▀██████▄
   █████▀ ▄▄██████████▄▄ ▀█████
  ████▀ ▄████████████████▄ ▀████
████▀ ▄██████████▌  ██████ ▀█████
█████ ██████████▀  ████████▄ ████
████▌ ██  ▄▄  ▀    █▀▀▀█████ ▐███
████▌ ███████         ▄▄ ▐██ ▐███
▐████ ▐██████        ██████▌ ████
█████  ██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀ █████
  █████▄ ▀██████████████▀ ▄█████
    ██████▄ ▀▀▀████▀▀▀ ▄██████
     ▀████████▄▄▄▄▄▄████████▀
        ▀▀██████████████▀▀
            ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
EOSJacks.com
The Decentralized EOS Gaming Platform
.





..





.        ▄▄██▄ ▄███▀▀ ▄
       ▀   ▐█████▄▄▄
           ▐██████▀▀▀▌
      ▄▄▄█▀▀▀▀▀██▄   ▀
    ▄▀            ▀▄
  ▄█                ▀▄
 █                   █▄
▐                     ▐
█  ▄██▀█       ▄█▀█    ▌
█  ▀███▀      ▀███▀    █
█                      ▌
█       █▄▄█▄▄▌        ▌
█    ▄   ▐▒▒▒▒▌   ▄    ▌
▄▀▄▄   ▌ ▐▒▒▒▒▌ ▐   ▄▄▀▄
▌     ▄▌  █▒▒█  ▐▄      ▌
 ▌▄▄▄▀    █▒▒█    ▀▄▄▄▄▌
 █         ▀▀         █
 ▐                    ▌
  ▌                   ▌
  █                  █
   █      ▀▀▀▀      █
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
[].





.MEDIUM
TWITTER
TELEGRAM
Endlessa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 27, 2013, 03:02:15 PM
Last edit: May 27, 2013, 03:40:22 PM by Endlessa
 #16

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.

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.  Roll Eyes

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 Smiley I was probably being overly cautious and respectful.
Endlessa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 27, 2013, 03:22:07 PM
 #17

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 Smiley 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 Smiley ).  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 Smiley Great discussion guys Smiley this is awesome fun
Endlessa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 27, 2013, 03:39:29 PM
 #18

I am impressed with your close analysis of the UCC!  Unfortunately, you took a couple wrong turns. As a threshold matter, the UCC is not a federal code.  It is a uniform set of laws enacted to a greater or lesser extent in many states.  Also, it may not even be relevant here.  I'm happy to help guide you through from the beginning if you're truly interested in getting the correct answer.

Let's begin like this:

Ignore the UCC for the moment.  Cut and paste the text of the specific terms of the contract you entered into with BFL.  When you purchased your hardware, did you ever click "I agree to terms and conditions" or something of the like?  If so, that's your starting point.  The express written agreement of the parties overrides the UCC in almost all instances, so let's start there.

Second: Having read the conversation in your link, it seems the complaint with BFL is that it unilaterally cancelled your order. If that is the case, then you are trying to answer the question "was BFL's cancellation of your order a breach of the contract, and if it was, what is the measure of damages."  This will be very important going forward.

Looking forward to seeing your response!

I am trying my best to keep this independent of a direct discussion of BFL itself.  I really just want the community to consider legal rights independent of the emotion of a specific case, but as a tool for risk management.  I'm a firm believer that an educated customer is an asset and an uneducated customer is a liability.  Additionally, to be clear, this did not happen to me.  I currently have no complaint against BFL.  We have already have at least 1 thread talking about the specifics of that instance.

That being said, you are dead on that UCC on a federal level is merely a legal framework that was an attempt to unify/structure state regulation (my understanding is prior to this trade regulations were all over the board) and is preceded by state implementation.  The federal expression only seems to have effect if it's not defined on a state level (anybody confirm or deny this?).   In the specific instance your talking about, I do not believe (haven't been able to find) where there are any overriding "terms and conditions" aside from no-refunds and a "currently scheduled" date which were on the page at the time of ordering.  Though, I'd really like discuss this on a more abstract level for general consumer awareness sake Smiley.

Great input Smiley lets keep this rolling

Edit: in this case when talking about the specifics I'm referring to Missouri's implementation, not the Federal framework Smiley
Endlessa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 27, 2013, 03:45:04 PM
 #19

Thinking about suing?

Thinking about hurting Sonny Vleisides at BFL?

Think again!

http://www.martindale.com/Gregory-W-Vleisides/1035415-lawyer.htm

Quote
Vleisides Donnelly & O'Leary
4006 Central, 2nd Fl.
Kansas City, MO 64153-1155

Respectfully, please stay on topic, there is another thread to behave this way on. 
Endlessa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 27, 2013, 03:51:42 PM
 #20



It got so far only a single response.

You are quite right that the act of payment/purchase is omitted, and furthermore, that the "expert" seems to have overlooked the applicable provisions of UCC.

You are quite right on that.  I don't really consider him and an "expert", just somebody that spends their days and nights thinking about it.  Much like most of us in the bitcoin community spend are time reading and learning about bitcoin.  I thought of it more as a litmus test as they are much more exposed to a broader range of information in their forums than we are here.  Sorry if I didn't make that clear Smiley
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!