There's a clause in original TOS that says they can change TOS in the future. I don't know if this is legal or not, it would be very useful if we can get qualified legal opinion on this issue.
I can not find this clause in the original TOS. Can you point it out?
http://pastebin.com/EfS9vmRfCan't find it in that copy (August 8th) either, don't know when it was introduced. In current copy (
https://hashfast.com/checkout/terms-of-sale/) they claim this:
20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; SEVERABILITY. These Terms, together with the order confirmation(s) sent from Hashfast to Buyer, are the entire agreement between Buyer and Hashfast with respect to its subject matter and supersedes all prior oral and written understandings, communications, or agreements between Buyer and Hashfast.
I can't see how that can be legal, but as I stated I would like an expert opinion.
This is a reminder to everyone to not enter into any new agreement with HashFast without consulting your lawyer. Their strategy is likely to roll-over old contracts into new ones, containing better protection for HashFast against legal action and remove more and more rights from customers.
For the same reason the MPP has to be viewed with scrutiny, as it is an independent contract not necessarily connected to the original purchase (dependent on the circumstance on acquiring it) and potentially subject to different TOS.
HashFast is likely preparing a wealth transfer scheme from new customers to old customers. They have to do this because they created a huge liability with their failure to deliver as promised (which they most likely deliberately took into account) and they do not want to cover the bill. Note that this scheme can be sustained as long as the market for mining equipment is expanding and HashFast can sufficiently scale the customer base. Eventually they need to collapse the Ponzi and leave some customers damaged.. but at that time those customers will have no repercussions against HashFast (since their TOS and communications are cured by that time).
This sounds like an awful thing to say but early customers are best off in case their Ponzi works and they can strip enough wealth from later customers to compensate earlier customers. HashFast will get rich in the process.
Don't expect to get much help from the legal system if you do not sufficiently protect yourself. Early customers have enough of a case to make it difficult for HashFast to defend themselves, which provides them with an incentive to simply pay early customers off in terms of additional hardware over long periods of time, but anyone who is entering a contract now will have a hard time fighting anything.