Topic: Recieved 50GH BFL Single Today! - page 24. (Read 51113 times)

Yeah but giga is a scammer. BFL is run by scammers. Of course they support each other.

Lmao. Prime comedy rib right here.

Josh is a fucking idiot who consumed too much prison hooch.  The hooch damaged his already pathetic little pea-brain beyond repair.

Inaba is like that guy that beats his wife in public and then forces her to tell him she loves him after he just gave her a shiner, so she can have the privilege of his company.  What a tool.

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 would agree with you. But if you waited on an empty promise for over a year...

I have no case law to cite, I just think it's highly unlikely that a judge would agree that canceling an order would persuade a judge that BFL is obligated to compensate for lost profits. A suit could be filed, I just doubt it would go anywhere.

Why do Bitcoin people always tend to not understand that being transparent when in a legal process is not a good idea?

If he intends to create trouble, he already disclosed far too much with noticing this phone call.

transcript?

cliff notes?

something?

 The nice probation officer I spoke to on the phone, who received my phone number from the Kansas AG office via the postal chief, wasn't a very empty conversation.

Worthy enough to be posted again!

alright! cant wait for mine!!!

If the party has lost potential winnings on a fraudulent statement of the other contract party, therefore, being defrauded and loosing out for the single notion that the other person has had a misstatement or broke basic contract law... sure.

I mean, he will be made "whole" from the part of contract law, but could file for additional damages arising from the breach of contract as a direct result.

*yawns* Your legal threats are as empty as Josh's "we will deliver in two weeks" statements.

As one of the guys who initially posted in this thread, I'm also included as a "monumental asshole". What did I do wrong to be offended by you, Inaba?

I doubt the parties here will end up in court, but I'm curious as to the basis for this assertion.

In a breach, a party's damages can certainly exceed a contract's consideration, and outside of the contact itself, I can think of nothing that would bar a claim for lost profits, no matter how speculative. Is there some case law that leads you to conclude otherwise?

The top bidder only has 3 feedback. Unless you run a thorough background check on him, I wouldn't sell to him. The next bidder is at 133 feedback. But with all those hacked eBay accounts I'd be scared.

wow, this thread has all kinds of silliness in it! Thanks for raising the bar on high-larity!

CONGRATS!!!

If this is true then it helps explain a lot of what has happened to the poor BFL customers who have been bilked. This is one aspect of Bitcoin that is hurting adoption, many of the early participants do not possess previous business experience, and it greatly shows. In this case, some of you may have invested in a convicted criminal specializing in the art of Fraud.


I have no clue if this claim is true or not however the attitude and performance of the company is congruent with someone with that type of background and moral character. To any observer it is clear he does not care for others opinions on his behaviour and performs power trips, a dubious position BFL customers have given him by providing BFL with copious amounts of purchasing power. These loyal customers gave up their hard earned money in either fiat ($) or worse yet, ฿ when it was worth significantly less in fiat$ terms, in return they have been lied to, insulted and disrespected constantly for almost a full calendar year. Josh would not act in this fashion if he did not already have your money, for fear of driving you away and going out of business.