Topic: Miners, Consumer Protections (UCC), and Pre-orders - page 5. (Read 6906 times)

I honestly do not understand what you meant here.

The right to termination exists only for contracts for successive performance that is indefinite in duration, such as a subscription.

Otherwise, once the contract was concluded between the parties, it is a done deal.

Again this thread isn't about Xian, it's about UCC consumer protections.   and this particular code was referenced in regard to the previous section posted. . consider the section on termination and this specific code together. .. if this was not clear please accept my apologies and regroup with it being clarified

especially given 400.2-106 consistent theme of mutual rights to termination.  it seems the code is expressing the right of termination to be available barring prior agreement/explicit definition.  I'm hard pressed to agree that it is a reasonable assumption that monetary pursuit would be fruitful in the eyes of the court.  If it is, yay consumer! but I would need specific citation of case before being able to accept this as reasonable proposition.  I am continuing to try and find such validation, but have yet to achieve a result that would propose it to be valid to a level I would personally find to be back-able. If you know of such a case I would be highly supportive of a posting. ..


the larger goal for me is to hopefully ensure that people do not pursue "frivolous litigation" base on non-verifiable statements of personal belief.  I am not proposing that you are presenting such and argument, but would love to see case that presents that there is viable reason to believe this is the case. "frivolous litigation" can often result in a buyer being liable for costs in a manner not suspected prior to litigation.

I fully express that I don't claim that I my advise is legally accurate or to be construed as legal advise.  In a situation, that seems to be contrary to a common theme exhibited by law, I do request that you might provide demonstrated example or definitive definition to the contrary.   As my concern is it may falsely empower a consumer to pursue a route that leads to more harm than good.  Suing an entity on a nebulous reason is hardly a profitable on a good day, unless the desire of success is measured by a level of person interpretation of morality.

Full disclosure, my prior education is in civil rights and discrimination.  This is my first foray into consumer right and UCC.  Please demonstrate example or advise on the side of caution.  Even though none of this should be reasonable considered legal advise, please ensure your example errors on the side of measured  constraint.. ..I would love to keep names/specific circumstance out of the discussion, but at time seems unavoidable.   Remember your expression may lead a buyer or seller to pursue a "cure" that may end badly or with loss.  Consulting a lawyer (imo) with cash in hand, doesn't necessarily lead to the best personal decision.  In my personal experience, there are often lawyers willing to take cash in pursuit of something that will later sour to results that doesn't resolve the way a buyer/seller may hope.

The BFL contract completes when the $5,000 worth of mining equipment has been delivered. There is no follow-on delivery of another $5,000 of mining equipment.

An example of something like this would be a maintenance contract where you buy a package of consumables, inspections and labor for the life of the equipment. It would be bizarre if I signed a contract to maintain my printer/copier that had no termination date and I couldn't cancel it.

Another example is a newspaper subscription.

If you read (2), it refers not simply to successive deliveries, but an indefinite contract (i.e., subscription): "If the contract provides for successive performances but is indefinite in duration"

This is clearly not the case that we are discussing here.

Once the contract was concluded (i.e., offer to purchase was accepted), and payment was made, the only reason that a seller can cancel the order is if the buyer explicitly asks for it, and the seller agrees to it. (I note that similarly, the buyer cannot ask for a refund, unless the seller fails to deliver.)

Many times there are successive deliveries in pre-orders. .. 1 order or several orders changes the rights of a seller or buyer?  "Absence of Specific Time Provisions" seems to be strongly worded as a heading and I could grant argument of (2) but I still  believe (3) to be applicable . . . .I don't see mutual exclusivity here

is it possible BFL would have delivered if the customer had represented a valuable relationship?  I don't see where BFL wouldn't have delivered, even though the date was different than the initial and reasonable questionable initial hope.  He was literally within a few days (based on order date) of delivery and still chose to present arguable debate. . . . .right or wrong it's reasonably questionable and if he had issue it should have been represented as formal complaint instead of conjecture.. ..

none of that is satisfied by action of either parties account. ...

damn it.. .lets get back to education. ..arguing that highly emotional example doesn't help the community as a whole and was promised to be moderated.

I agree. I would add that BFL will likely be on the hook for consequential damages too (e.g., the buyer's loss of revenue as a result of the non-delivery).

It seems that you are reading (3) without reading (2) -- the two are interrelated, though:


So, the seller can terminate a contract that involves successive performance  for an indefinite period (for example, a delivery of a newspaper to your doorstep every day).

This is entirely different than the delivery of a single (or a few goods) once.

This +10. .. million. .. without prior protest there is very little to stand on outside of I am angry.. .which might be a valid personal belief, but not a legal one. . . imo. . .feel free to continue a debate within the restraints of this thread

I'd argue that the value of the goods has not risen. The goods ordered didn't and don't exist. The expectation would be that they would be developed. The specification have been drastically altered. BFL offered to switch existing orders over to what was actually produced. Even with higher production costs they've been giving full credit to existing orders in exchange for them accepting the power hungry tech. This is still has no bearing on the issue being discussed.

Which is "what type of contract" is the sale and "how can damages be defined"

1) substitution of "a reasonable time" for lack of a specific delivery time
2) the contract does not provide for successive deliveries (like a subscription) so this does not apply, but it mainly says that a subscription contract can be canceled if it doesn't specify how many items or for how long the subscription is for.
3) just says you are in violation of the UCC if you decide to unilaterally terminate a contract and do not notify the other party. It does not absolve you of any responsibilities in the contract just because you notified the other party.

According to the UCC: failure to deliver means the seller must make restitution for the value of the contract, for the value of comparable goods, or arrange for comparable goods to be delivered if it chooses not to deliver the original goods in the sale contract.

BFL made the sale, the buyer paid in full, BFL did not deliver, the value of the goods rose, BFL chose not to honor the contract, BFL then resold the goods in question at a higher price (via more pre-orders). Pretty cut and dry. BFL's choices are to: arrange for the purchased amount of GH/s to appear in Xian's mailbox, re-instate his order, or pay the going market price for an early BFL order at the time of the cancellation.

here's another interesting  section that may (contradiction is invited) address preorder.

I read this as, barring some huge unfair burden ("its operation would be unconscionable") or it occurring on some some agreed upon event (delivery of product, in the case of pre-order).  With some kind of "resonable notification" (email or snail mail or forum post), unless other wise specified (SLA or delivery contract or Term/conditions) a seller could terminate the contract.  One of the only ways, I think, that this could be argued against would be if the business unilaterally terminated all contracts of sale in an effort to utilize this as a "loop hole".

Ty for the info though this thread is more focused on the law than a specific company   It is important for all buyers and sellers to be aware of these type of clauses

It is a good example of what to look for when ordering from a company in the US

Here are the terms you agree to when buying product on the BFL website:

Products are shipped according to placement in the order queue, and delivery may take 2 months or more after order. All sales are final.

Correct, it then becomes a game played in the realm of UCC. ..and any additional state laws (not being covered here because the vary even more widely).

Okay, I can buy that, "implied warranty" != "written contract" that's all I was getting at. In any situation such as this, if It got to court that would be the first thing the judge would want to see is the contract. No contract? Then it becomes a different ball game.

Hi centove, it's referred to as an "implied warranty" and  UCC is designed to provide basic assurance to both buyer and seller in non-formal trade (no explicit contract) of movable goods.  Unless you enter into an agreement that overrides this, it is governing code of law.  Does that help?


Edit: It's often referred to as "Consumer Protection" but a lot of states also have additional laws in effect.  We are additionally trying not to discuss BFL directly, as there are several threads doing so, but more so the hypothetical discussion of consumer rights as they relate to pre-orders and consumer education.  Lets try to keep this academic and objective. We have plenty of emotion on other threads.  The only reason it's focused on Missouri  (as stated previously) is because I was learning while trying to understand the reality of that specific situation.  I want to share what I learned and get further interaction on a more academic level.  

Ok I found something in the code I think is relevant (drlukacs I don't think I got lost in the lease section this time  hehe I found this in definitions. . .please let me know if I did it again). I will add this to the first post under an Edit section.



I was looking for this part before, and ended up quoting the wrong section (in the other thread).  Let me know if I found the right one this time

So what I'm thinking were talking here is the difference between Cancellation and Termination.  In the absence of clause explicitly disallowing it (like an SLA or formal delivery contract), don't both parties retain the right to both Termination and Cancellation?  In the case of a vendor cancelling an order for a reason other than breach (aka they don't want to do business with you), wouldn't that more qualify as a "Termination" than a "Cancellation" and release them from their obligations?  If the consumer is not the cancelling party for reasons of breach, it doesn't appear they can later claim breach. ("same as that of "termination" except that the cancelling party also retains any remedy for breach").  I would read this to be in place as a measure to prevent the exact scenario that a vendor terminates the business relationship for non-breach reasons and angry customer then wants to sue.  

Edit: clarification (added a prepositional phrase)