[BitCentury] Metabank 120Gh 65nm Pre-Order Proxy [CLOSED]

[senseless]

We'd again like to thank everyone for their vote of confidence in us, and congratulations to all those who have made their first purchases of the fastest (and lowest power) bitcoin ASIC technology bitcoins can buy today. We have just placed the 8th order of devices from Metabank now totaling 51 devices and a collective hash rate of 6.12Th/s.

If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact us.

Regards,
Tom Sensel

[digitalmagus]

Sales Contract Update: I am still awaiting a call back from the owner of our law firm regarding the finalized sales contract for all our customers. If I don't get a call back soon, I will just post our non-lawyer-approved sales contract draft which should at least give you all an idea of the terms we are considering. We would then wait until Monday to get the final version and post that immediately.
Cheers,
Luis

[digitalmagus]

Hello everyone,

Please find below a link to an unofficial draft copy of our intended sales contract. As stated in the document, any and all words, conditions, obligations etc may still change pending our lawyer's final review and recommendations; however, I don't anticipate any drastic changes.

Given we still have some time until we can meet with our lawyers on Monday to acquire the final version, please feel free to review it and provide any feedback, concerns, suggestions etc. I look forward to your comments!  

The PDF has a password. The password is:  NOT LEGALLY BINDING DRAFT COPY

View document here: [EDIT: This has now been removed, as it is no longer necessary]



Thank you for your patience thus far with this process,
Luis

[dogie]

Hello everyone,

Please find below a link to an unofficial draft copy of our intended sales contract. As stated in the document, any and all words, conditions, obligations etc may still change pending our lawyer's final review and recommendations; however, I don't anticipate any drastic changes.

Given we still have some time until we can meet with our lawyers on Monday to acquire the final version, please feel free to review it and provide any feedback, concerns, suggestions etc. I look forward to your comments!  

The PDF has a password. The password is:  NOT LEGALLY BINDING DRAFT COPY

View document here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz7CvNpsvWycUm1yb015UzFjbFU/edit?usp=sharing


Thank you for your patience thus far with this process,
Luis

Your liabilities section is all bullshit. You can put whatever you want in a contract, but if its not legal then its as if it didn't exist. I really hope your partner owns your house, as if they're a scam/fail then you're going absolutely bankrupt with the liability. And don't tell me "its being done by lawyer", I would rip that contract to shreds in court.

[digitalmagus]

Your liabilities section is all bullshit. You can put whatever you want in a contract, but if its not legal then its as if it didn't exist. I really hope your partner owns your house, as if they're a scam/fail then you're going absolutely bankrupt with the liability. And don't tell me "its being done by lawyer", I would rip that contract to shreds in court.

Dogie, you can disagree as much as you like with us, but I ask that you be civil about it. As stated in numerous places this is only an early draft and anything may change. You may be quite right that some statements may not be legal, at minimum in your jurisdiction - I am not a lawyer, that's why we hired a law firm to review it. Further, if you don't like the upcoming legally binding contract, you do not have to buy a product from us or if you own one, you can request a full refund under the terms stated. We could have waited until Monday to provide only the legal version, but we released this early to allow people to judge as to whether or not they are ok with our intended sales contract proposal, and yes we welcome feedback.

And lastly, we should actually thank you, as you were the one who suggested we should have a sales contract in the previous thread. So thank you.

Regards,
Luis

[firefop]

[digitalmagus]

funny

[dogie]

Your liabilities section is all bullshit. You can put whatever you want in a contract, but if its not legal then its as if it didn't exist. I really hope your partner owns your house, as if they're a scam/fail then you're going absolutely bankrupt with the liability. And don't tell me "its being done by lawyer", I would rip that contract to shreds in court.

Dogie, you can disagree as much as you like with us, but I ask that you be civil about it. As stated in numerous places this is only an early draft and anything may change. You may be quite right that some statements may not be legal, at minimum in your jurisdiction - I am not a lawyer, that's why we hired a law firm to review it. Further, if you don't like the upcoming legally binding contract, you do not have to buy a product from us or if you own one, you can request a full refund under the terms stated. We could have waited until Monday to provide only the legal version, but we released this early to allow people to judge as to whether or not they are ok with our intended sales contract proposal, and yes we welcome feedback.

And lastly, we should actually thank you, as you were the one who suggested we should have a sales contract in the previous thread. So thank you.

Regards,
Luis

I am being civil, I'm actually trying to help you specifically. Unfortunately the damage has been done and you now have 6.5TH of orders which you are liable for if they go missing. Its not about my jurisdiction or state, its the whole basis of this group buy and others trying to pass on liability - it just can't be done.

You are offering a product, and you have a supplier. If your supplier scams you, its your responsibility. The buyers all bought a product from YOU, if YOU can't provide it then you have to refund them in full. Seriously, this entire thing is a disaster waiting to happen. If they turn out to be a scam, you'll be accountable for every penny.

I don't remember suggesting a sales contract directly either.

[stripykitteh]

The contract is more or less what I was expecting. It's pretty clear that this is a principal-agent relationship for a fee, not a buyer-seller relationship. If there are defects in what is delivered the buyer does not have recourse through BitCentury unless breach of contract can be proved.

I think the contract should explicitly state when delivery is effective - i.e., does BitCentury's responsibility for delivery stop at a port of entry to the principal's country? (i.e., the principal is responsible for the product clearing customs) As a principal I'd like to see something in there about a delivery warranty. i.e., if BitCentury's courier (DHL or whoever) fails to deliver the product or damages it in transit I would be compensated (or will the delivery contract be between the customer and DHL rather than BitCentury and DHL - that should be clarified).

If anyone is uncomfortable with what is proposed I recommend asking for a refund now; I think BitCentury would be mad to draw up the contract as a buyer-seller relationship, precisely because there are so many issues at play here that they have no control over.

I'm currently studying law, btw.

[stripykitteh]

You are offering a product, and you have a supplier. If your supplier scams you, its your responsibility. The buyers all bought a product from YOU, if YOU can't provide it then you have to refund them in full. Seriously, this entire thing is a disaster waiting to happen. If they turn out to be a scam, you'll be accountable for every penny.

Dogie, there's nothing in contract law disallowing principal-agent relationships. For the sake of clarity though that should be an express term of the contract. As long as the principal goes into it with their eyes open I can't see any problem. If BitCentury masqueraded as a seller and then later claimed only to be an agent when things went pear-shaped, THAT would be a problem and it would be "see you in court" time.

Simply, this is not a sales contract and it should be amended to make that clear.

[dogie]

You are offering a product, and you have a supplier. If your supplier scams you, its your responsibility. The buyers all bought a product from YOU, if YOU can't provide it then you have to refund them in full. Seriously, this entire thing is a disaster waiting to happen. If they turn out to be a scam, you'll be accountable for every penny.

Dogie, there's nothing in contract law disallowing principal-agent relationships. For the sake of clarity though that should be an express term of the contract. As long as the principal goes into it with their eyes open I can't see any problem. If BitCentury masqueraded as a seller and then later claimed only to be an agent when things went pear-shaped, THAT would be a problem and it would be "see you in court" time.

Simply, this is not a sales contract and it should be amended to make that clear.

Which is why I was failing at conveying that you can't add liability limitations into a sales contract, for a sale If I was him I'd still be worried even if he had the most perfect agent contract. Anyone can sue for anything and cause you major problems for years, even if there are no obvious grounds. Like the Jackson family suing the tour promotion company for billions for the alleged wrongdoings of the family doctor ^_^

[stripykitteh]

You are offering a product, and you have a supplier. If your supplier scams you, its your responsibility. The buyers all bought a product from YOU, if YOU can't provide it then you have to refund them in full. Seriously, this entire thing is a disaster waiting to happen. If they turn out to be a scam, you'll be accountable for every penny.

Dogie, there's nothing in contract law disallowing principal-agent relationships. For the sake of clarity though that should be an express term of the contract. As long as the principal goes into it with their eyes open I can't see any problem. If BitCentury masqueraded as a seller and then later claimed only to be an agent when things went pear-shaped, THAT would be a problem and it would be "see you in court" time.

Simply, this is not a sales contract and it should be amended to make that clear.

Which is why I was failing at conveying that you can't add liability limitations into a sales contract, for a sale If I was him I'd still be worried even if he had the most perfect agent contract. Anyone can sue for anything and cause you major problems for years, even if there are no obvious grounds. Like the Jackson family suing the tour promotion company for billions for the alleged wrongdoings of the family doctor ^_^

Ok, sorry,  sounds like we are saying the same thing in different ways.

[senseless]

Which is why I was failing at conveying that you can't add liability limitations into a sales contract, for a sale If I was him I'd still be worried even if he had the most perfect agent contract. Anyone can sue for anything and cause you major problems for years, even if there are no obvious grounds. Like the Jackson family suing the tour promotion company for billions for the alleged wrongdoings of the family doctor ^_^

Not to be rude, but I just want to clarify this. So you are stating that the sale of a service; is not a sale?

It's evident to anyone who looks that we're acting as agent and the contract of sale is the contract of sale for our agent service; not a contract of sale for the device. Unless you're suggesting that DHL and Fedex have no taxable income (as they do not "sell" anything), then selling a service is still a sale.






 

[dogie]

Which is why I was failing at conveying that you can't add liability limitations into a sales contract, for a sale If I was him I'd still be worried even if he had the most perfect agent contract. Anyone can sue for anything and cause you major problems for years, even if there are no obvious grounds. Like the Jackson family suing the tour promotion company for billions for the alleged wrongdoings of the family doctor ^_^

Not to be rude, but I just want to clarify this. So you are stating that the sale of a service; is not a sale?

It's evident to anyone who looks that we're acting as agent and the contract of sale is the contract of sale for our agent service; not a contract of sale for the device. Unless you're suggesting that DHL and Fedex have no taxable income (as they do not "sell" anything), then selling a service is still a sale.

I'm not sure where you've got that from to translate to what I was trying to say, other than that's not what I'm saying. Unless you quoted the wrong post?

This group buy was trying to design a sales of goods contract to not be a sale of goods by putting exclusion clauses in, which is impossible.

[senseless]

Which is why I was failing at conveying that you can't add liability limitations into a sales contract, for a sale If I was him I'd still be worried even if he had the most perfect agent contract. Anyone can sue for anything and cause you major problems for years, even if there are no obvious grounds. Like the Jackson family suing the tour promotion company for billions for the alleged wrongdoings of the family doctor ^_^

Not to be rude, but I just want to clarify this. So you are stating that the sale of a service; is not a sale?

It's evident to anyone who looks that we're acting as agent and the contract of sale is the contract of sale for our agent service; not a contract of sale for the device. Unless you're suggesting that DHL and Fedex have no taxable income (as they do not "sell" anything), then selling a service is still a sale.

I'm not sure where you've got that from to translate to what I was trying to say, other than that's not what I'm saying. Unless you quoted the wrong post?

This group buy was trying to design a sales of goods contract to not be a sale of goods by putting exclusion clauses in, which is impossible.

It's apparent that you would like to back peddle and argue about the definition of words, We'll have to go with simple questions in a simple format:

If you sell a service is it a sale, yes or no?

If you add a contract to the sale of a service, it is a sales contract, yes or no?

[dogie]

Which is why I was failing at conveying that you can't add liability limitations into a sales contract, for a sale If I was him I'd still be worried even if he had the most perfect agent contract. Anyone can sue for anything and cause you major problems for years, even if there are no obvious grounds. Like the Jackson family suing the tour promotion company for billions for the alleged wrongdoings of the family doctor ^_^

Not to be rude, but I just want to clarify this. So you are stating that the sale of a service; is not a sale?

It's evident to anyone who looks that we're acting as agent and the contract of sale is the contract of sale for our agent service; not a contract of sale for the device. Unless you're suggesting that DHL and Fedex have no taxable income (as they do not "sell" anything), then selling a service is still a sale.

I'm not sure where you've got that from to translate to what I was trying to say, other than that's not what I'm saying. Unless you quoted the wrong post?

This group buy was trying to design a sales of goods contract to not be a sale of goods by putting exclusion clauses in, which is impossible.

If you would like to back peddle and argue about the definition of words, We'll have to go with simple questions in a simple format:

If you sell a service is it a sale, yes or no?

If you add a contract to the sale of a service, it is a sales contract, yes or no?

Yes. Yes, but not in this case.

The contract was specifically geared towards delivering a physical product in return for a payment.

[stripykitteh]

Not trying to complicate the issue here; I want to help you guys succeed. My advice is worth what you've paid for it. Also bear in mind that at law school we get taught to find problems, not always how to solve them.  

The trouble element I see is that at the end of the contract the principal ends up being the owner of the hardware. At some point during the contract metabank.ru must own the hardware (even though they do not have privity to the contract), the question is does BitCentury become the owner at some point before the end of the contract? I think the answer to that is probably yes (invoices etc would be in BitCentury's name, not the name of the principal), in which case it gets harder to deny that you are not performing a sale of goods contract.

Hopefully your lawyer will either spot the flaw in my argument or be able to amend the contract to protect you, but like Dogie says you want to be careful that you don't end up with something that ends up being interpreted as a contract of sale of goods.

I last studied contract law 3 years ago, my analysis might be off. Sorry if bringing this up ends up being a waste of your time.

[senseless]

Which is why I was failing at conveying that you can't add liability limitations into a sales contract, for a sale If I was him I'd still be worried even if he had the most perfect agent contract. Anyone can sue for anything and cause you major problems for years, even if there are no obvious grounds. Like the Jackson family suing the tour promotion company for billions for the alleged wrongdoings of the family doctor ^_^

Not to be rude, but I just want to clarify this. So you are stating that the sale of a service; is not a sale?

It's evident to anyone who looks that we're acting as agent and the contract of sale is the contract of sale for our agent service; not a contract of sale for the device. Unless you're suggesting that DHL and Fedex have no taxable income (as they do not "sell" anything), then selling a service is still a sale.

I'm not sure where you've got that from to translate to what I was trying to say, other than that's not what I'm saying. Unless you quoted the wrong post?

This group buy was trying to design a sales of goods contract to not be a sale of goods by putting exclusion clauses in, which is impossible.

If you would like to back peddle and argue about the definition of words, We'll have to go with simple questions in a simple format:

If you sell a service is it a sale, yes or no?

If you add a contract to the sale of a service, it is a sales contract, yes or no?

Yes. Yes, but not in this case.

The contract was specifically geared towards delivering a physical product in return for a payment.

What you're seeing is preliminary version which was meant to convey the general attitude of the contract of service. The contract states the liability we have with relation to delivery of your package and with the relation of the seller making said product available for us to collect on the user's behalf. As it is known and as you say yourself, if selling a service is a sale, this is a sales contract stating liabilities of the service. If you ask DHL (or any courier) to pick up a package, scheduling the pick up, but the person you asked them to pick up a product from doesn't (or wont/cant) give it to them, it's not their liability. The contract in question is simply reiterating these points.

[RoboCoder]

Could you please clarify something for me?  I am in the US, if i were to order through you and receive a number of these devices and they turn out to have a problem or be defective, will i have any recourse to get them replaced?

Even if it is to send it back to you and pay a fee for the swap?

Thanks!

[digitalmagus]

Could you please clarify something for me?  I am in the US, if i were to order through you and receive a number of these devices and they turn out to have a problem or be defective, will i have any recourse to get them replaced?
Even if it is to send it back to you and pay a fee for the swap?
Thanks!

Hi RoboCoder,
You ask a good question. We are internally discussing if and how this, or something of the sort might work. We are trying to finalize a customer contract so this and some of the other details mentioned earlier today may require some editing of our contract. Once we have come to a decision we'll announce the details. We'll get back to you as soon as we are able.
Thanks,
Luis