[You can file in your local jurisdiction since Butterfly Labs sells online. Ask for damages of the difference between the market value of your forward contract to purchase BFL equipment and the amount you were refunded. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally terminated.
There is more to be claimed, actually, because were not talking about an item whose price simply increased over time, but rather means of production -- a tool that can generate revenue. It more akin to failing to deliver a car to a taxi cab licensee. It prevents the buyer from earning.
You are correct, loss of revenue is certainly to be considered. He would need to consult a lawyer about it though.
Holy crap k9quaint, I'll already went over the facts in UCC for missouri with you. I think you have a bad case of fish memory. drlukacs please go back and read before you run in all cowboy shooting your guns in the air yelling "Yeehaw! look at me I'm making points and stuff!"
In the state of Missouri, once you cancel the implied contract and refund the money. All responsibilities of both parties are terminated. The only recourse after that is to PROVE prior breach of contract (before the cancellation). Since the product wasn't delivered yet. The only possible thing he could bring up is the delivery time. With the link I previously gave showing the archived version of the website, It clearly stated that October was the "Currently scheduled" date. This clearly makes the buyer aware that the date is not definitive, unless they lack basic reading comprehension. The final obligation for the seller is to let them know if/when the specification of the product changes, which they did through the forums and with the confirmation of the buyers desire to continue the purchase (the recent dialog that pops up). Now, you can be frustrated and angry and I can understand your emotions. You can't arbitrarily say they did something illegal. I have seen no supporting evidence of your claims. I only see that you are angry and want to hurt them. I'm supportive of expressing your feelings and emotions. I'm not supportive of some distorted, trumped up, vengeful misinformation campaign. I'm supportive of exploring consumer rights, as this is something all buyers should be aware of when purchasing products. I'm not supportive of making crap up because you "feel" like that's what the law should be.
* this is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you feel you have an actual fact that disproves this is the law, by all means I'd love to explore it.
Hello again Mr. Obvious Sockpuppet is Obvious.
BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. BFL can be sued by Xian for the difference between the current value of that contract and the money they refunded to him.
Xian should win effortlessly.
UCC covers the sale of "future goods" (commonly referred to as pre-orders) as well. your just making things up again. ..bring some supporting law to the table and I'll take a look. If your right, the factual contribution is much appreciated
As for your "sock puppet" claim. Firstly, your getting really boring with that. When people speak this way, I start to think of them as the type of person who would appear in a tinfoil hat tell me how microwaves are "mind control" devices. Secondly, my demeanor and approach to discussing this with you is vastly different from Josh's approach (right or wrong, couldn't care less). I feel a touch sad that I need to inform you that there are other people in the world that don't believe in your beliefs. And all of them but the actual "Josh" are not named Josh.
Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore. BFL can be sued by Xian for the difference between the current value of that contract and the money they refunded to him.
Xian should win effortlessly.
Again bring a law to the table and lets take a look at it. . . keep claiming sock puppet, Its arbitrary and pointless. Only serves the purpose of misdirection on your part. If you want to imagine me being Josh, feel free. It doesn't change the discussion at all.
Hello Mr. Obvious Socketpuppet is Obvious. I brought the law. Xian already contacted the Missouri's AG office. He will probably also contact a lawyer to get the rest of his money back for the forward contract cancellation via civil court. You should put a little more effort into pretending you are not int30h if you want us to take you seriously. BFL was selling forward contracts, not sales of existing goods. Forward contracts cannot be unilaterally canceled just because one party does not want to pay the agreed price anymore.
I will put no effort into proving my identity to you. I do not owe you that. I could care less.
Also, I'm not the one who claimed "Implied Contract" and consumer protections in Missouri, you were. I only brought the actual facts and direct law of consumer protections (UCC) to the table, so we could talk about them and how they may or may not apply to what you were talking about. When that didn't pan out for you, you come back with new equally sure argument about "future contracts". I was hoping you would, in turn, do the leg work to show precisely the laws you are talking about. Instead, because I'm almost sure your not going to, I will once again figure out for you what you are talking about, so the community can evaluate the facts and educate our selves on what is and isn't protecting us when we purchase product. To clarify, I'm not fully claiming you are wrong on this. I'm just asking you bring it to the table with some facts, so we discern whether or not this is another statement of how you feel the law should be or if it's an actually applicable argument.
In addition, anybody can register a complaint with AG against anybody within their jurisdiction. This is no way a proof of wrong doing.
