Dispute arbitration needed - hardware buyer trying to back out of trade

[Keefe]

Is this the correct forum section?

I recently sold an Avalon and two BFL Singles to wrawb, with a return policy covering under-performance. These units ran fine for me for months. But he says one of the Singles occasionally needs restarting, and he hasn't yet managed to configure the Avalon. He is now trying to partially back out of the trade and return both the Avalon and the one unstable Single. I argue that the return policy only allows him to return units that don't perform as advertised. The one Single may be unstable because of his software (BFL's Easy Miner) or power supply, or insufficient cooling in the room. The Avalon just needs to be configured for his network and pool account. The escrow service we're using doesn't want to take a side without community input.

This is the trade contract we agreed to:

Wrawb (*****@*****) is buying two BFL SC Singles and one 3-module first-batch Avalon from Keefe (*****@*****) for 28.94 BTC, including shipping and escrow costs. OgNasty is providing escrow service. Each BFL unit comes with a USB cable but no power supply, and the Avalon unit has a 650W internal power supply and comes with a power cord with US plug. There are no known defects. In total, the three units hash at ~191 GH/s as reported by bfgminer and Avalon's cgminer.

Wrawb will send the 28.94 BTC to OgNasty at ***** by 2pm PT Oct 12.

Keefe will ship the three units by 3pm PT Oct 12 from *****, via USPS Priority Mail (insured, and with signature required at delivery) to Wrawb at the following address:
 *****
 *****
 *****

In the event Wrawb fails to pay on time or Keefe fails to ship on time, either party may cancel the trade or renegotiate terms. In the event the units do not function as stated above, Wrawb must ship the units back to Keefe within 48 hours of receipt, in the same packaging and by the same shipping method, to get a full refund.

Wrawb will inform OgNasty of the status of the trade within 48 hours of receipt of the units.

Upon release by Wrawb, OgNasty will send 28.65 BTC to Keefe at ***** and keep 0.29 BTC as the escrow fee.

Wrawb received the units Tue. I've offered to help configure the Avalon, and Wrawb let me access his computer remotely Thu evening. We got as far as connecting the Avalon to his laptop by ethernet and logging into the Avalon's web interface, but his laptop battery ran out before I could configure the wifi and pool settings, and he stopped responding. The next I heard from him was Fri afternoon saying he had repackaged the Avalon and one Single and is planning to ship them back Sat. I told him I would refuse delivery and asked him to allow me to finish configuring the Avalon for him.

How should I handle this?

[1713583077]

1713583077

[1713583077]

1713583077

[1713583077]

1713583077

[1713583077]

1713583077

[Keefe]

You can ask him to deal with this now. You obviously don't understand whats going on. I planned to have it operational by tuesday latest by wednesday. You agreed to the terms that if it was not hashing at 191 then I was entitled to a refund. It is not a loophole it is clearly stated there. If I did want to cancel the trade I could have refused delivery also correct? I did not accept the package only to try and cancel the trade. I appreciate you trying to get it to work but it is too late. On Delivery I was to have received 3 FUNCTIONAL mining machines. I received 1. BFL has problems and the Avalon doesn't connect to the configuration page anymore.

Are you connecting the Avalon directly to a computer by ethernet, and did you make sure windows isn't treating it as a public network, like it was when we first worked on it together? That apparently blocks you from accessing its configuration page at 192.168.1.100.

At the time you received the units, their functionality was undetermined. A reasonable interpretation of the contract requires you to determine functionality before returning. The Avalon's functionality is still undetermined. I see no reason to believe that it has stopped functioning since it left my hands. One BFL Single is fully functional. The other Single's functionality is arguable, as you say it works but needs occasional restarting. It may simply be overheating due to heat in the room, or another unit blowing hot air on it.

I offered a compromise. I'll accept back the problem BFL, help configure the Avalon, and compensate you for the few days the Avalon wasn't mining.

The key to our dispute seems to be whether the return policy applies to all units as a whole, or individual units. You seem to argue that just because one Single is not stable in your environment, that you are entitled to also return other units as well. I argue that a reasonable interpretation of the policy applies to each unit individually and doesn't allow you to return a unit without determining its functionality.

I officially extend the return policy on the Avalon through the end of Monday, if you give me access and time to configure it and determine its functionality.

I'd appreciate any input from the community. Is he entitled to return the Avalon before configuring it and determining its functionality? I've made every effort to help him with that. Network settings are tricky.

[rufusBTC]

I'd appreciate any input from the community. Is he entitled to return the Avalon before configuring it and determining its functionality? I've made every effort to help him with that. Network settings are tricky.

Your sales contract should outline an answer to this question, ideally. It could say something like "if buyer returns the unit claiming it is not working but when I test it, it is working, then a refund is not possible but I can ship the unit back to the buyer at their expense". of course, a contract can say one thing but if a buyer ships something back and you take it, you're stuck with it and then they will be clamoring for a refund. claiming scam if they don't get it. But if your contract covers that situation then at least you can present your case. Good luck!

[Keefe]

I'd appreciate any input from the community. Is he entitled to return the Avalon before configuring it and determining its functionality? I've made every effort to help him with that. Network settings are tricky.

Your sales contract should outline an answer to this question, ideally. It could say something like "if buyer returns the unit claiming it is not working but when I test it, it is working, then a refund is not possible but I can ship the unit back to the buyer at their expense". of course, a contract can say one thing but if a buyer ships something back and you take it, you're stuck with it and then they will be clamoring for a refund. claiming scam if they don't get it. But if your contract covers that situation then at least you can present your case. Good luck!

The full contract is in the OP. It's too late to clarify it. I can now only ask for a reasonable interpretation of it as originally written.

[OgNasty]

As the escrow agent in this case, I would appreciate feedback on this situation also.  I think that while the seller has a responsibility to make sure the equipment they are selling is functional, the buyer equally has the responsibility of taking the time to learn and implement conditions that will allow the equipment to function properly.  Without having the equipment in my hands it is difficult to rule on who is right and who is wrong.  I also believe that a proper resolution will leave both sides unpleased, and I don't want to be the judge and jury alone on this case.  

All armchair lawyers and opinionated folks, let's hear it.  Now is your time to shine.  

I've offered to help configure the Avalon, and Wrawb let me access his computer remotely Thu evening. We got as far as connecting the Avalon to his laptop by ethernet and logging into the Avalon's web interface, but his laptop battery ran out before I could configure the wifi and pool settings, and he stopped responding. The next I heard from him was Fri afternoon saying he had repackaged the Avalon and one Single and is planning to ship them back Sat.

This is the part of the story that I find somewhat disturbing...

[SaltySpitoon]

I agree, with Keefe. If he shipped the units knowing that they were fully working, and are no longer working properly, at least give Keefe a reasonable opportunity to help fix the situation. Thats how customer service works. If I purchased a laptop from Dell, and something was screwy with it, I'd call Dell tech support before returning it for a refund, and hopefully they would get everything worked out.

I'm definitely not making any personal judgements here, but as OgNasty said, the part where you were helping, and their, Laptop Battery died, and didn't respond after that sounds a lot like the person just wants a refund due to a change in heart over wanting the mining equipment. How hard is it to plug in the laptop and send a pm via the forums or over skype saying something like, "can we work on this later, I'm going to be busy until Friday" and jumpinging the gun repackaging it sounds a little off to me as well.

Of course, this is assuming all of this information is accurate, as we haven't heard from the other person yet. Anyway, just my personal opinion, would be for OgNasty to hold the funds a bit longer, and allow Keefe a reasonable chance at helping to fix the situation as he seemed to be interested in doing in their first place, if there is one.

[Keefe]

From his communication with me, it seems his reason for wanting to return the Avalon is that it has taken more time than he expected to configure it. I've tried my best to solve that concern by offering to configure it for him (which he let me begin doing Thu evening) and compensate him for the few days of downtime. I would think he could find a spare hour sometime in the next couple days to let me finish the configuration so he can see that it works as advertised. At that point, he'll have the working unit he originally wanted, and with my downtime compensation he'll have as much BTC as if he had been able to configure it the moment he received it. Of course he may have other unstated motives for changing his mind.

[n4ru]

From his communication with me, it seems his reason for wanting to return the Avalon is that it has taken more time than he expected to configure it. I've tried my best to solve that concern by offering to configure it for him (which he let me begin doing Thu evening) and compensate him for the few days of downtime. I would think he could find a spare hour sometime in the next couple days to let me finish the configuration so he can see that it works as advertised. At that point, he'll have the working unit he originally wanted, and with my downtime compensation he'll have as much BTC as if he had been able to configure it the moment he received it. Of course he may have other unstated motives for changing his mind.

If you believe it's the customer unwilling to take the time to configure his own product properly, he should have thought about it prior to the purchase. Laziness is what it sounds like. I'd side with the seller in this case. The product was delivered as promised, and additional support to setup was provided and is still suggested.