Maybe I have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone actually state any contractual obligations that were ignored by BFL. I think this may greatly help your case.
If there are none, it is possible that they are abusing the loose obligations placed upon them. Even if they are not specifically violating their agreement, at some point the line has to be drawn. I think that is what this poll is asking.
If there are none, it is possible that they are abusing the loose obligations placed upon them. Even if they are not specifically violating their agreement, at some point the line has to be drawn. I think that is what this poll is asking.
Claiming they would deliver a product by the end of October in early October was fraud, plain and simple. There is no way they could have actually delivered anything at that point and they knew it. They would never be able to convince a court that they were that clueless about the time it takes to design an ASIC and get it up and running, test it, manufacture it, and ship it.
The funny thing is that they probably actually were pretty fast in designing their product when compared to others who have done so. It was just all the lies that made it look like they were so late.
There needs to be a class action lawsuit, or investigation by the attorney general to see what they were really intending when they announce a late October shipping date. My guess is that it was done to spur on more pre-orders and scare away their competitors. That is illegal. I bet a subpoena of their e-mails and internal memos would should that is exactly what they were doing.
Thus, I believe they deserve the scammer tag.
