Contract law is all about making the damaged party "whole", ie. recovering their losses. If the purchase price is refunded there are no damages. Potential lost profits on a speculative crypto-currency don't count.
RICO, as in racketeering? Please.
I agree with your interpretation of contract law, but for any party who has had a pre-order cancelled to be made whole, they would need to receive the fair market value for the object contracted. This means if the ebay auction for the 50 GHps miner goes to $30,000, then the fiduciary responsibility of BFL would be $30,000 per miner, not the original purchase price. This has nothing to do with speculative cryptocurrency prices, but the real price of ASIC miners in the market. It would be easy to show the value from similar Avalon auctions as well.
I'll give you an example to make this more clear. Let's say you contracted with a gold company in 2008 to give you a delivery of one ounce of gold 3 months later and gave them $870. Then they had some delays at the mine and you said, don't worry, just give it to me next season. then the next season rolls around and an ounce of gold has gone above $1,000. Do you think any court in the land would allow the mine to just give you back your $870 and keep the ounce of gold?
In this case, I think Gar225 was wrong in his complaint as these were full FPGA orders paid before 6/23 that were converted to ASIC orders, and not ASIC orders with FPGA upgrade. Many people on the chatbox have talked about this weeks ago, so this isn't a surprise to those who pay attention. At the same time, I would be surprised that BFL could come out of forcibly cancelling an order without actual damages (including the secondary market value of a miner but also those for loss of sleep and mental suffering) and possibly punitive damages awarded against them. This is the opinion someone who was married to a law student and also someone who has been involved in two successful lawsuits (although neither was for breech of contract). The fact of the matter is that the bar is ridiculously low to get an award, and in both of the cases I was in, the lawyers were falling over themselves to settle because the additional "losses" you can show are so high to be punitive in themselves.
I think the market value would have to be calculated at the secondary market price for miners at the time garr's items would have been delivered had they not been canceled. As more miners ship out the market price will continue to drop.
Interesting analysis though. I suppose the only way to know for sure would be to file a suit and see how it turns out. If BFL makes a habit of canceling orders in response to criticism, someone will drag them into court eventually. I just hope my order arrives first.