Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2024, 08:59:22 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [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 6822 times)
Endlessa (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 27, 2013, 11:53:51 PM
 #41

Many times there are successive deliveries in pre-orders. .. 1 order or several orders changes the rights of a seller or buyer?  "Absence of Specific Time Provisions" seems to be strongly worded as a heading and I could grant argument of (2) but I still  believe (3) to be applicable . . . .I don't see mutual exclusivity here

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

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

The BFL contract completes when the $5,000 worth of mining equipment has been delivered. There is no follow-on delivery of another $5,000 of mining equipment.

An example of something like this would be a maintenance contract where you buy a package of consumables, inspections and labor for the life of the equipment. It would be bizarre if I signed a contract to maintain my printer/copier that had no termination date and I couldn't cancel it.

Another example is a newspaper subscription.

Again this thread isn't about Xian, it's about UCC consumer protections.   and this particular code was referenced in regard to the previous section posted. . consider the section on termination and this specific code together. .. if this was not clear please accept my apologies and regroup with it being clarified
1711659562
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711659562

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711659562
Reply with quote  #2

1711659562
Report to moderator
"There should not be any signed int. If you've found a signed int somewhere, please tell me (within the next 25 years please) and I'll change it to unsigned int." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711659562
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711659562

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711659562
Reply with quote  #2

1711659562
Report to moderator
drlukacs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 253


l0tt0.com


View Profile
May 27, 2013, 11:57:13 PM
 #42

especially given 400.2-106 consistent theme of mutual rights to termination.  it seems the code is expressing the right of termination to be available barring prior agreement/explicit definition.  I'm hard pressed to agree that it is a reasonable assumption that monetary pursuit would be fruitful in the eyes of the court.  If it is, yay consumer! but I would need specific citation of case before being able to accept this as reasonable proposition.  I am continuing to try and find such validation, but have yet to achieve a result that would propose it to be valid to a level I would personally find to be back-able. If you know of such a case I would be highly supportive of a posting. ..

I honestly do not understand what you meant here.

The right to termination exists only for contracts for successive performance that is indefinite in duration, such as a subscription.

Otherwise, once the contract was concluded between the parties, it is a done deal.

|.
WHIRLWIND
|
█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█
        ▄▄▄██▀▀▀▀▀▄▄         █
     ▄▄██▀▀▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄        █A
    ▄██▀▄██▀▄▀▀▀ ▄▄ ▄▄▄▄     █
   ███ ██▀▄▀     ▄▄▀▄▄ ▀█▄   █
  ███ ███ █        ▀▄ █▄ ██  █
  ███ ███ █         █ ██ ██  █
  ███ ███ █        ▄▀ █▀ ██  █
   ███ ██▄▀▄     ▀▀▄▀▀ ▄█▀   █
    ▀██▄▀██▄▀▄▄▄ ▀▀ ▀▀▀▀     █
     ▀▀██▄▄▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀        █
        ▀▀▀██▄▄▄▄▄▀▀         █
█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
|.
  No Fee    Ultimate Privacy  
|.
ANONYMITY
MINING CAMPAIGN
|.
MIX NOW
|
Endlessa (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 28, 2013, 12:03:05 AM
 #43

especially given 400.2-106 consistent theme of mutual rights to termination.  it seems the code is expressing the right of termination to be available barring prior agreement/explicit definition.  I'm hard pressed to agree that it is a reasonable assumption that monetary pursuit would be fruitful in the eyes of the court.  If it is, yay consumer! but I would need specific citation of case before being able to accept this as reasonable proposition.  I am continuing to try and find such validation, but have yet to achieve a result that would propose it to be valid to a level I would personally find to be back-able. If you know of such a case I would be highly supportive of a posting. ..

I honestly do not understand what you meant here.

The right to termination exists only for contracts for successive performance that is indefinite in duration, such as a subscription.

Otherwise, once the contract was concluded between the parties, it is a done deal.

Is there a citation to this effect? I don't oppose you on this. I just would love to see the verifiable court opinion.  As a buyer I truly hope you to be correct, but I'm hesitant/unwilling to pursue based on conjecture.. .granted the discussion has been primarily conjecture, but in optimistic pursuit, I'd hope for verification of belief.
drlukacs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 253


l0tt0.com


View Profile
May 28, 2013, 12:06:12 AM
 #44

Is there a citation to this affect? I don't oppose you on this. I just would love to see the verifiable court opinion.  As a buyer I truly hope you to be correct, but I'm hesitant/unwilling to pursue based on conjecture.. .granted the discussion has been primarily conjecture, but in optimistic pursuit, I'd hope for verification of belief.

You yourself cited the law in this respect (see section (2)).

|.
WHIRLWIND
|
█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█
        ▄▄▄██▀▀▀▀▀▄▄         █
     ▄▄██▀▀▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄        █A
    ▄██▀▄██▀▄▀▀▀ ▄▄ ▄▄▄▄     █
   ███ ██▀▄▀     ▄▄▀▄▄ ▀█▄   █
  ███ ███ █        ▀▄ █▄ ██  █
  ███ ███ █         █ ██ ██  █
  ███ ███ █        ▄▀ █▀ ██  █
   ███ ██▄▀▄     ▀▀▄▀▀ ▄█▀   █
    ▀██▄▀██▄▀▄▄▄ ▀▀ ▀▀▀▀     █
     ▀▀██▄▄▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀        █
        ▀▀▀██▄▄▄▄▄▀▀         █
█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
|.
  No Fee    Ultimate Privacy  
|.
ANONYMITY
MINING CAMPAIGN
|.
MIX NOW
|
Endlessa (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 28, 2013, 12:08:49 AM
 #45

Is there a citation to this affect? I don't oppose you on this. I just would love to see the verifiable court opinion.  As a buyer I truly hope you to be correct, but I'm hesitant/unwilling to pursue based on conjecture.. .granted the discussion has been primarily conjecture, but in optimistic pursuit, I'd hope for verification of belief.

You yourself cited the law in this respect (see section (2)).

Please break this down (I claim total noob concerning implied "contract of sale" and hope for a layperson digestible explanation)
Endlessa (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 28, 2013, 12:15:56 AM
 #46

My biggest thing here is you are willing to propose optimistic opinion, please offer case citation.  If your a lawyer, this is not even an after thought.  If you are not this is a due responsibility to offer hope to a person seeking pursuit under these regulations.
MSantori
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 28, 2013, 12:18:11 AM
Last edit: May 31, 2013, 11:39:41 PM by MSantori
 #47

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

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

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

If, a month after purchase, Widgetco refuses to ship its widget to MSantori, and instead "cancel's" MSantori's order by refunding him his $100, then Widgetco is in breach of a material term of the contract.  MSantori's was probably not a contract "absent a specific time provision" There was a specific provision as to time: "when we receive them from the manufacturer, and in the order in which we sold them."

WidgetCo would be liable to MSantori for his "expectancy damages": the value that MSantori would have realized but for the breach.  What would MSantori have if not for Widgetco's breach?  At the very least, he'd have a widget.  How can MSantori get a widget now?  Well, if a widget now costs $300, then the measure of MSantori's expectency damages is at least $200.

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


edit: clarified damages

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
k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 28, 2013, 12:22:17 AM
 #48

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

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

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

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

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

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

So it is a "specific provision as to time" not a "provision as to a specific time". I don't know how I missed that. /slaps forehead
Now that makes a lot more sense.  Cheesy

Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
Endlessa (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 28, 2013, 12:27:37 AM
 #49

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)

This got glossed over a bit.  Especially concerning (3) .   Doesn't this trump our contention of the previous point.  Sorry I post so much stuff, but I'm a fast typist and am trying to distill this in the face of confusion.
Endlessa (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 28, 2013, 12:33:32 AM
 #50

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK I get this, if Widgetco terminates with an explicit reason of non-delivery.  What if Widgetco has a thousand orders and tells 1 we don't want to do business with you for non-breach reasons? That's not an expression of intent not to deliver (repudiation) but an expression of a desire not to do business with an individual.  (scroll up I posted some law).   Is there a difference?   How does that affect pursuit? What cases has this happened within previously?
k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 28, 2013, 12:35:17 AM
 #51

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)

This got glossed over a bit.  Especially concerning (3) .   Doesn't this trump our contention of the previous point.  Sorry I post so much stuff, but I'm a fast typist and am trying to distill this in the face of confusion.

"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.

"Pursuant to a power created by agreement or law". There is no power created by the contract that Xian agreed to that allows BFL to unilaterally dissolve it. There has yet been no law cited which grants BFL a unilateral right to dissolve the contract rather than fulfill it's terms.

Also, please see the fact pattern put forth by MSantori. Furthermore, MSantori claims a law degree and a passing score on the bar exam of the state of New York. (may the great flying spaghetti monster have mercy on his soul).

Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
Endlessa (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 28, 2013, 12:40:42 AM
 #52

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)

This got glossed over a bit.  Especially concerning (3) .   Doesn't this trump our contention of the previous point.  Sorry I post so much stuff, but I'm a fast typist and am trying to distill this in the face of confusion.

"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.

"Pursuant to a power created by agreement or law". There is no power created by the contract that Xian agreed to that allows BFL to unilaterally dissolve it. There has yet been no law cited which grants BFL a unilateral right to dissolve the contract rather than fulfill it's terms.

Also, please see the fact pattern put forth by MSantori. Furthermore, MSantori claims a law degree and a passing score on the bar exam of the state of New York. (may the great flying spaghetti monster have mercy on his soul).

did that
k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 28, 2013, 12:42:54 AM
 #53

OK I get this, if Widgetco terminates with an explicit reason of non-delivery.  What if Widgetco has a thousand orders and tells 1 we don't want to do business with you for non-breach reasons? That's not an expression of intent not to deliver (repudiation) but an expression of a desire not to do business with an individual.  (scroll up I posted some law).   Is there a difference?   How does that affect pursuit? What cases has this happened within previously?

Widgetco can choose not to do further business with them (providing they do not violate any discrimination laws). But they cannot choose to unwind previous business protected by contract on a whim.  

How would the reason for non-delivery be "non-breach"? Failure to deliver is a breach of the contract, there must be some mitigating circumstance to that failure for there to not be a breach.

A fact pattern that illustrates the need for sales contracts to remain intact:

I run GoldBuyer Co. I offer to sell people gold for $10 below spot price and I guarantee delivery of gold within 3 weeks. The customer pays the full amount at the time of purchase. I actually only buy the gold 4 days before I deliver it.
My business model is as follows:
If at the time I purchase the gold the spot price for gold is higher than the amount paid by the customer, I dissolve the contract and give them a refund. I make money on 16 days of deposit interest.
If at the time I purchase the gold the spot price for gold is lower than the amount paid by the customer, I fulfill the order and ship the customer their gold. I pocket the difference between the spot price and the price the customer paid for the gold. I also make interest on 16 days of deposit.

If sellers can unwind any contract they choose citing only that they don't like the customer, bad things happen.

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

Activity: 854
Merit: 253


l0tt0.com


View Profile
May 28, 2013, 12:43:04 AM
 #54

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your fact pattern is a good first approximation. (The difference is that In the case of BFL, it is also the manufacturer of the goods.)

I also agree that "if a widget now costs $200, then the measure of MSantori's expectency damages is at least $200."

Earlier, some members asked for caselaw (authorities) on these points. Would you be able to refer them to cases where such damages were awarded for the seller simply "cancelling" the order o the buyer?

|.
WHIRLWIND
|
█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█
        ▄▄▄██▀▀▀▀▀▄▄         █
     ▄▄██▀▀▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄        █A
    ▄██▀▄██▀▄▀▀▀ ▄▄ ▄▄▄▄     █
   ███ ██▀▄▀     ▄▄▀▄▄ ▀█▄   █
  ███ ███ █        ▀▄ █▄ ██  █
  ███ ███ █         █ ██ ██  █
  ███ ███ █        ▄▀ █▀ ██  █
   ███ ██▄▀▄     ▀▀▄▀▀ ▄█▀   █
    ▀██▄▀██▄▀▄▄▄ ▀▀ ▀▀▀▀     █
     ▀▀██▄▄▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀        █
        ▀▀▀██▄▄▄▄▄▀▀         █
█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
|.
  No Fee    Ultimate Privacy  
|.
ANONYMITY
MINING CAMPAIGN
|.
MIX NOW
|
drlukacs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 253


l0tt0.com


View Profile
May 28, 2013, 12:44:35 AM
 #55

A fact pattern that illustrates the need for sales contracts to remain intact:

I run GoldBuyer Co. I offer to sell people gold for $10 below spot price and I guarantee delivery of gold within 3 weeks. The customer pays the full amount at the time of purchase. I actually only buy the gold 4 days before I deliver it.
My business model is as follows:
If at the time I purchase the gold the spot price for gold is higher than the amount paid by the customer, I dissolve the contract and give them a refund. I make money on 16 days of deposit interest.
If at the time I purchase the gold the spot price for gold is lower than the amount paid by the customer, I fulfill the order and ship the customer their gold. I pocket the difference between the spot price and the price the customer paid for the gold. I also make interest on 16 days of deposit.

If sellers can unwind any contract they choose citing only that they don't like the customer, bad things happen.

Excellent point.

|.
WHIRLWIND
|
█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█
        ▄▄▄██▀▀▀▀▀▄▄         █
     ▄▄██▀▀▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄        █A
    ▄██▀▄██▀▄▀▀▀ ▄▄ ▄▄▄▄     █
   ███ ██▀▄▀     ▄▄▀▄▄ ▀█▄   █
  ███ ███ █        ▀▄ █▄ ██  █
  ███ ███ █         █ ██ ██  █
  ███ ███ █        ▄▀ █▀ ██  █
   ███ ██▄▀▄     ▀▀▄▀▀ ▄█▀   █
    ▀██▄▀██▄▀▄▄▄ ▀▀ ▀▀▀▀     █
     ▀▀██▄▄▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▀▀▀        █
        ▀▀▀██▄▄▄▄▄▀▀         █
█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
|.
  No Fee    Ultimate Privacy  
|.
ANONYMITY
MINING CAMPAIGN
|.
MIX NOW
|
MSantori
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 28, 2013, 12:55:19 AM
 #56

Earlier, some members asked for caselaw (authorities) on these points. Would you be able to refer them to cases where such damages were awarded for the seller simply "cancelling" the order o the buyer?

I typically happy to give some very general legal principles on this forum for warm fuzzies, and occasionally a kind soul will send an anonymous BTC donation to my public wallet address. But pulling case law comes a little too close to legal advice, which I can't really give without a more formal engagement. Bummer Sad

In any event, this is a very fundamental point of contract law: it is a failure to perform resulting in breach of a material term of the agreement,  and expectancy damages.

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
MSantori
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 28, 2013, 01:01:54 AM
 #57


What if Widgetco has a thousand orders and tells 1 we don't want to do business with you for non-breach reasons? That's not an expression of intent not to deliver (repudiation) but an expression of a desire not to do business with an individual.  (scroll up I posted some law).   Is there a difference?   How does that affect pursuit? What cases has this happened within previously?

The issue of whether Widgetco likes MSantori is not relevant to the contract analysis.  The relevant issue is whether WidgetCo performed or not. This is governed by the concept of anticipatory repudiation: When the party obligated to perform under the contract unequivocally manifests an intent not to perform a future obligation, that party breaches the contract.  Or, as wikipedia (yeah, we use that sometimes) puts it: "a declaration by the promising party to a contract, that he or she does not intend to live up to his or her obligations under the contract."

Unilaterally cancelling and refusing to ship an order is a great example.

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
Endlessa (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 335
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 28, 2013, 01:02:37 AM
Last edit: May 28, 2013, 01:21:57 AM by Endlessa
 #58

Earlier, some members asked for caselaw (authorities) on these points. Would you be able to refer them to cases where such damages were awarded for the seller simply "cancelling" the order o the buyer?

I typically happy to give some very general legal principles on this forum for warm fuzzies, and occasionally a kind soul will send an anonymous BTC donation to my public wallet address. But pulling case law comes a little too close to legal advice, which I can't really give without a more formal engagement. Bummer Sad

In any event, this is a very fundamental point of contract law: it is a failure to perform resulting in breach of a material term of the agreement,  and expectancy damages.

Total Respect on that point of too close to legal advise.  (btw I've seen that signature before ^ ^)  The crust of my question falls to, does a seller have no right to terminate for non-breach reasons after funds are received? Is there a circumstance where they could?  If it's too much to ask for a personal opinion for your safety error on the side of caution, not constituting legal advise, but admired opinion.


Btw I might devil advocate but all honest contribution is truly respected


I'm trying (perhaps feebly) to distill this convo into a summary to put in the starting post.  I'm hoping for some definitive answers that buyers can view the commentary on. your only the admitted lawyer I've encountered on this thread.
MSantori
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 28, 2013, 01:25:03 AM
 #59

The crust of my question falls to, does a seller have no right to terminate for non-breach reasons after funds are received? Is there a circumstance where they could?  

I don't understand what you mean by non-breach reasons.  There are some affirmative defenses to a claim for a breach of contract, but none of them apply on the facts of my example.

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
YipYip
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 28, 2013, 01:26:31 AM
 #60

The crust of my question falls to, does a seller have no right to terminate for non-breach reasons after funds are received? Is there a circumstance where they could?  

I don't understand what you mean by non-breach reasons.  There are some affirmative defenses to a claim for a breach of contract, but none of them apply on the facts of my example.

How much would you need to start this process of taking widgetco to task over this breach Huh

OBJECT NOT FOUND
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!