Topic: Alpha Technology Litecoin (Scrypt) ASIC Miner Order Batch 1 Now! - page 102. (Read 529056 times)

Also, I just need to ask. Does Alpha actually communicate in the English language or do they have translators doing everything for them? Wrong?

They keep quoting HMRC...

But HMRC says:

•1.Income received from Bitcoin mining activities will generally be outside the scope of VAT on the basis that the activity does not constitute an economic activity for VAT purposes because there is an insufficient link between any services provided and any consideration received.

LoL.. I mean seriously... what the fuck do they think they are quoting in their defense with that?


Also....
In their defense against my claim with the courts I had to ROFL because they state:

"The customer is not eligible for a full refund or chargeback as per our terms and conditions.. bla bla bla"
They should try telling that to all the credit card companies charging back their bullshit orders HAHAHA....... the courts are going to ROFL at these fucking children

LOL. Alpha did it. They tried using their standard bullshit defense with the courts! Now I just wait to get my mail from the UK and I can upload all my lovely defensive documents. Excuse me, I mean my lovely Alpha-eliminating documents. Count the weeks Alpha, LOL. Count them. 'Cuz you're absolutely done.



How much of the claim do you dispute?

I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.

Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?

No, for other reasons.

Defence

The distant selling regulation does not apply to our product or
company, as the products we are selling are purely for the purpose
of 'mining' cryptocurrencies, which is a business activity. Mining
cryptocurrencies is a business activity as it is a process of
making money (income) and HMRC also taxes it , please view the
following link: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/briefs/vat/brief0914.htm.

This is NOT a consumer product, but a product with the sole
purpose of generating an income via cryptocurrency mining as shown
in the brief given by HMRC which taxes all earnings on mining.

It is the customers duty to register itself as a business if they
are to mine cryptocurrencies, as they will be taxed on such
earnings.

As per our terms and conditions our product is still in
development and is scheduled to be delivered by Q3 (End of
September) as stated here in our terms and conditions
https://alpha-t.net/terms-order/

We provide regular developmental updates and the customer is aware
of this. If the customer requires a refund we refund them as per
our cancellation policy which is also stated in our terms and
conditions. Where they are required to email us and we instantly
go through the relevant process of providing them with a refund.

We take a fee of the customer as they are requesting a refund
before product has been completed and it puts us at a loss if we
are half way developing a customers product, which is scheduled to
be delivered by Q3 (end of September).

The customer is not eligible for a full refund or chargeback as
per our terms and conditions as the product has not hit it's
shipping time yet and scheduled shipping is still some time off
where we are still in the developmental stage.

This is what the customer was aware of before accepting our terms
and conditions by placing an order.

Signed

I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true

M.Akram

Managing Director

07/08/2014

Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you

66 DICKENSON ROAD

MANCHESTER

M14 5HF

WOW.  Regulation that is FAIR and BALANCED?  I'm farking moving to the EU  What is the best country to be in for a poor american sap like me!?!?!?!?!  I'm not a typical America.  I respect other nationalities and will diligently focus on converting my natural language.



Besides the general requirement of "good faith" and "balance", the EU rules contain a list of specific terms that may be judged unfair....

Costas went on a package holiday with his girlfriend to Kenya for which he paid € 2000 per person. The holiday was a disaster. The flight was delayed by 12 hours. The air conditioning in the hotel was not working at all. The safari trip took place but not in the park they had been promised; on top of that, they were transported there by bus instead of by plane. They complained to the tour operator and asked for compensation amounting to a total of €5,000 (€4,000 for the cost of the package and €1,000 for lost time and enjoyment). The tour operator agreed to compensate them €1,000 only, pointing to a provision in the contract limiting the organiser's liability to 25% of the total cost of the holiday.


Liese was travelling a lot and decided to hire a gardener to come twice a week to look after her lawn and flowerbeds. But one month in summer the gardener didn't come and the flowers died from lack of water. When Liese complained, the gardener showed her a term in the contract allowing him not to come if he had too much work on for other clients.

Liese told the gardener that, according to information she had found on the internet, this clause wasn't valid - she therefore managed to get amicable compensation for the lost flowers and obtained a formal commitment from the gardener guaranteeing his twice-weekly services.


Mary ordered kitchen furniture for her new apartment. She paid a 30% deposit up-front and the company came to her apartment to take measurements. The furniture was supposed to be ready and installed in 8 weeks.

After two months Mary called the seller and was told that, unfortunately, it would not be possible to deliver the furniture for several months. Since Mary wanted to move to her new apartment, she cancelled the contract, bought furniture which was in stock in another shop, and asked for a refund of her deposit. The seller refused to return the deposit pointing to a contract term stating that, if the customer cancels the contract, the seller is entitled to keep the deposit. When Mary had a closer look at the contract she discovered that, had the seller decided to cancel the contract, she would not have been entitled to an equivalent compensation.

Mary checked with her national consumer association, who told her that the contract clause was clearly unfair. Therefore, Mary contacted the seller again, referred to her contacts with the legal experts in the consumer association and managed to get her deposit refunded.


Cristina ordered a wedding dress from a fashion designer. Two weeks before the wedding, she was supposed to meet the designer for a final fitting. When she called him to make an appointment, he told her he'd terminated their contract without providing any real justification.

Cristina checked with a lawyer friend whether the designer could just cancel the contract like that. Her friend explained it was clearly an unfair term because the contract doesn't give Cristina the same right to cancel. Her friend called the designer and explained the legal situation. The designer contacted Cristina and made an appointment for the fitting. Her dress was ready just in time for the wedding.


Nathalie had a contract with a small local Internet provider, with no end-date specified. One day she received an e-mail informing her that the contract would be terminated as of next week. She called the provider and asked for an explanation but they couldn't give any real reason for cancelling the contract at such a short notice.

Nathalie contacted a consumer association, who told her such term was most likely unfair. She therefore contacted the Internet provider again and managed to get her Internet subscription extended for sufficient time to enable her to switch to a different provider.



Mark has a one-year mobile phone contract which he concluded 10 months ago. His wife recently switched to a new mobile phone company offering very attractive bundle packs and free calls within the network. Mark decided to switch to this new operator as soon as his contract expired. He checked his contract and found out that, if he wanted to terminate it, he should have given 6-months' notice. Since he didn't do that, his contract would have been automatically extended for another year.

Mark was disappointed and decided to contact his national consumer organisation. They informed him it was unfair on the part of the mobile phone company to require that much notice. They advised him to take the matter to court if the company tried to enforce the unfair term.



Monika rented an apartment, on a 3-year lease. But it was only when she moved in that she found out she had to use a cleaning service that charged €100 every month, on top of the rent. Sure enough there was a clause in the contract referring to a document about cleaning services. But Monika had never been given this document.
She told the owner of the apartment that this additional obligation wasn't fair because she hadn't been informed of it before signing the lease
Monika searched on the Internet and found that "hidden" terms like this are unfair. - and she eventually managed to avoid that fixed cost.


Pavel took out a loan from his bank to buy a new car. After 8 months, he discovered that his monthly instalments had gone up.

When he looked more closely at the contract, Pavel discovered a term authorising the bank to unilaterally change the interest rate without giving Pavel a chance to terminate the contract.

He contacted his local consumer association for advice. They told him that, since there was no clause giving Pavel the right to terminate the contract, the term allowing the bank to put up the interest rate was unfair. They advised him not to pay the higher interest rate and to file an official complaint with them, had the bank refused to review the unfair term - Pavel followed their advice and managed to have the contract clause changed.


Birgit ordered new tiles for her renovated bathroom. She chose white-and-blue striped tiles. After 4 weeks, the tiles arrived but they were simple white matt tiles with no stripes. When she contacted the supplier, they pointed out that, under the terms and conditions displayed on the order, if the company was unable to supply any particular item for whatever reason, it would replace it with an item of equivalent standard and value.

Birgit contacted the European Consumer Centres network and was told it was unfair to have terms and conditions that provided for unilateral changes in the product supplied. With the support of the ECC-net, she eventually got her money back.


Krisztina ordered a personalised photo book with pictures of her child. When the book arrived she discovered that the cover of the book was not the colour she'd chosen. She complained to the seller but he refused to reprint the book. He referred to the terms and conditions displayed on the order, saying that the delivery is in conformity with the contract when the seller decides it is.

Krisztina knew that such terms are unfair and insisted that the trader reprint the book or give her money back. By pointing to her rights, she eventually got the book reprinted at no additional cost.


Jake bought some shoes in a shop. He did not have time to try them on but the shop assistant told him that, should the size be wrong, he could take them back and exchange. The shoes indeed turned out to be the wrong size, so Jake took them back. But the manager refused the exchange and showed him a written document on the conditions of sale which specified in particular that no exchange was possible, and that notwithstanding commitments made by shop assistants, only the rules contained in that document were valid.

Jake contacted the European Consumer Centres network who confirmed the unfairness of the term. With the ECC-net's assistance, he soon managed to exchange the shoes for another pair.


Louise subscribed to a business-press–review newsletter. She was supposed to receive a business press review from all EU countries in English every day. But sometimes there was no newsletter for 2 or 3 days, and not all the news was translated into English. The next month she received just one newsletter. Even though the service wasn't working properly, she still received invoices for the full subscription fee. She asked the supplier to reduce the price so she only had to pay for the days when she had actually received the service. However, the company refused pointing out that, according to the contract, the service could be temporarily interrupted without releasing the client from their payment obligations.

In the end, the national consumer organisation stepped in; Louise's fee was reduced and the service provider was forced to change the unfair term in the contract.

Actually, I have just discovered EVERYONES WINNING TICKET from the previous site... LOOK


17. Limited rights to legal action


Terms which restrict how and where consumers can take legal action and obliging them to provide proof which is the responsibility of the other party to the contract.

Sample story

For the summer holidays, Alain bought a flight ticket from Paris to Porto. On his way to the airport, he was stuck in public transport, arrived at the airport 30 minutes late and ended up having to buy a new flight ticket to reach his holiday destination. When checking-in two weeks later at Porto's airport, he was shocked to discover that his return flight had been cancelled on the grounds that he had not used the outward ticket. He had no choice but to buy another ticket with the same airline. When boarding the plane, he informed the flight attendant that he would start court proceedings as soon as he got back to France in order to obtain compensation. But he was told by flight attendant that, under the airline's standard terms and conditions, he was allowed to take action only in the UK, where the airline was based. Alain had a closer look at the terms and conditions on the company's website and indeed, found a term stating that any legal action should be brought before a UK Court.

Alain contacted the European Consumer Centres network, who told him that a term that limited his legal right to take action was unfair and invalid, so he could take the matter to court in France after all. He also received confirmation that a term providing for the cancellation of a return ticket purely on the grounds that the outward ticket had not been used may, in certain circumstances, be considered as unfair.


Case closed! Alpha you are FUCKED. GAME OVER BITCHES!

LoL , nice link
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/shopping/unfair-treatment/unfair-contract-terms/index_en.htm

What we are dealing with here is a giant case of

13. One-sided interpretation of the contract

Terms where the trader alone has the right to interpret any clause of the contract and to decide whether the product or service complies with the contract.

Sample story

Krisztina ordered a personalised photo book with pictures of her child. When the book arrived she discovered that the cover of the book was not the colour she'd chosen. She complained to the seller but he refused to reprint the book. He referred to the terms and conditions displayed on the order, saying that the delivery is in conformity with the contract when the seller decides it is.

Krisztina knew that such terms are unfair and insisted that the trader reprint the book or give her money back. By pointing to her rights, she eventually got the book reprinted at no additional cost.

and even more


14. Not honouring statements made by the trader's staff

Terms under which a trader tries to dodge commitments made by his staff or where such commitments are subject to other conditions.

Sample story

Jake bought some shoes in a shop. He did not have time to try them on but the shop assistant told him that, should the size be wrong, he could take them back and exchange. The shoes indeed turned out to be the wrong size, so Jake took them back. But the manager refused the exchange and showed him a written document on the conditions of sale which specified in particular that no exchange was possible, and that notwithstanding commitments made by shop assistants, only the rules contained in that document were valid.

Jake contacted the European Consumer Centres network who confirmed the unfairness of the term. With the ECC-net's assistance, he soon managed to exchange the shoes for another pair.

and lets not forget


15. One-sided compliance with obligations

Terms obliging consumers to fulfil all their obligations when the trader doesn't abide by his.

Sample story

Louise subscribed to a business-press–review newsletter. She was supposed to receive a business press review from all EU countries in English every day. But sometimes there was no newsletter for 2 or 3 days, and not all the news was translated into English. The next month she received just one newsletter. Even though the service wasn't working properly, she still received invoices for the full subscription fee. She asked the supplier to reduce the price so she only had to pay for the days when she had actually received the service. However, the company refused pointing out that, according to the contract, the service could be temporarily interrupted without releasing the client from their payment obligations.

In the end, the national consumer organisation stepped in; Louise's fee was reduced and the service provider was forced to change the unfair term in the contract.



Alpha, here comes bankruptcy!

One of these things is not like the other...  one of these things is not the same.  Its time to play our game.

BEFORE WE GOT YOUR MONEY

AFTER WE GOT YOUR MONEY


If I had to pick the one I wanted to shell money out for, well I would rather pay for the 3d render than the low budget aluminum can that they are trying to pass off as a 4U server chassis.  Drill holes into a cardboard box to support telescopic rails and it will be rack mountable.

Oh but wait its not the box that we care about its the chips that we really paid for.  Yeah were are they?  Oh yeah they STILL haven't taped-out.  Lol.  So if they rebooted tape-out it will be about 30-90 days before they even get a good mask, unless they double down and "pay extra for a risk lot".  

Getting back to rackmountable.  I seriously doubt this tin can qualifies as following ISO 9001:2000 and EIA-310-D standards for rackmounting.  They keep using that word but they externalizing the PSU.  How does that follow the EIA standard and still count as "rack mountable".

Yet another lie that Alpha Tech is telling.  I mean if you are business customers,( as some of you are) you should be going after Alpha Tech for break of contract because their units will not qualify as rack mountable if they do not conform to the EIA standard.  With external PSU that using Molex pin form factor they definitely DO NOT.  Molex has never been approved as an external connector.  Hence why it is always used on internal PSU.  This thing is a fire hazard and will not be approved to be used in any data center.

BTW - Google Alpha Technology Vaporware

or

Alpha Tech Vapor

 I loled

Who was that from?

Now what?

EU - Your rights when shopping online:

http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/shopping/buy-sell-online/rights-e-commerce/index_en.htm

Is it possible Alpha-T NEVER INTENDED to deliver the Viper ?

7 WEEKS TO THE END OF SEPTEMBER

It's all vaporware.  The fact that they are still "THINKING" of changing things around this late in the game means they have completely failed.  They will not deliver anything, ever.  They are busy hiding their personal assets while they prepare for the company to go bankrupt and sell everything to another company... that with the same owners for pennies.  They'll pocket MILLIONS.    I've seen this before, boat assembly plant... went belly up, then mysteriously was operating again at full capacity under a different company, same owners and just as mysteriously, the new company had no debts. 

Is it possible Alpha-T has given up entirely on fabrication and is buying the boards from elsewhere, hence the big change in having lots of smaller boards?

I am drafting a lawsuit.  I am also challenging the 30% deposit with my bank.  I will be posting relevant breach portions next week that should apply to any common law jurisdiction (including the UK). I will also post my fraudulent inducement argument (which is 100% solid in the US and should work in the UK since it is pretty much the same law).  I am not posting it as legal advice.  I am not posting it somewhere where Alpha can see it.  They will see it when my process server shoves it in their greedy faces.  I will not be suing them in the UK.  They will have to fly to the States or hire a US attorney to defend themselves.  US jurisdiction allows me to sue them here because they targeted US customers, they reasonably expected therefore to be haled into court here.  If they didn't, they shouldn't have sold to US customers (specifically me).  Finally, I will 100% win on a local statutory fraud count against them.  My local fraud statute covers even INNOCENT MISREPRESENTATIONS that are not corrected by a business to consumers.   Consumers, in that statute, are defined as including even BUSINESSES that purchase products from other businesses so their bullshit business argument won't work.  Since I never intended to sell my Viper, it will work 100%.  I've won about 8 lawsuits so far for clients, never anticipated doing one for myself, using this argument.  Against major banks, big Fortune 500 businesses, and local contractors.  The statute grants attorneys fees, costs, punitive damages, and actual damages (I'm going to push for $50,000 in punitive damages).

Their 2 bit solicitors will get royally fucked if they fight because I will rack up attorneys fees and still win.  There are NO DEFENSES to statutory fraud -- it is strict liability.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

"The term "consumer" means any person who purchases or contracts for the purchase of merchandise not for resale in the ordinary course of his trade or business but for his use or that of a member of his household."

"The term "person" includes any natural person or his legal representative, partnership, corporation (domestic and foreign), company, trust, business entity or association, and any agent, employee, salesman, partner, officer, director, member, stockholder, associate, trustee or cestui que trust thereof."

I will say that I am not representing myself -- my brother, unfortunately, paid the 30% deposit and placed the order. I told him it was a good opportunity and I regret that to this day.  That's why I'm vehemently trying to make this right for him but Alpha is so blatantly unremorsefully shameless that I probably have to slap them with a big judgment and seize their personal property (I've made more than one fraud defendant HOMELESS) before they come to terms with their illegal acts.  I am a bulldog and I don't let go after I tear a piece of a shady Defendant's ass out.

Conjecture about T&C and other facts related to this issue is no substitute for getting the help of a practicing solicitor.

I don't think not paying the 70% is particularly relevant with regard to the 8-10 week shipping date. The fact that Alpha REQUESTED it is the key. They say in their T&Cs balances will be collected 8-10 weeks before the SHIPPING DATE. Not, "Your item will be shipped 8-10 weeks after receiving full payment". This may seem small but it implies that those that paid 10 weeks ago should have their item and those that pay today will get it 8-10 weeks from now. This is clearly not the case.

Alpha were supposed to ship 8-10 weeks after they requested final payment that is why they repeatedly said the 31st of July would be the worst case shipping date. Exactly 10 weeks from the final payment demand.

Also the lack of Paypal/CC payment options removed the ability of many customers to pay. They also said the EXACT SHIPPING DATE was to be provided when payment was requested This was not the case. All of these are breaches of contract no matter how Alpha slice it. If they are going to argue this case based on their T&Cs I think they are in big trouble.

I just read Scooby's forms. Seems simple enough. I think we should help Scooby get this claim going as if it is successful it will start a snowball effect. I suggest we do it via PM. As Derekman is also doing the same I suggest you two get in touch. If you need another opinion please feel free to PM me with your ideas and strategies and I will be happy to help where I can.