Quote from: k9quaint on May 25, 2013, 09:26:35 PM

Quote from: Endlessa on May 25, 2013, 09:03:56 PM

Quote from: Syke on May 25, 2013, 08:57:01 PM

Quote from: TheSwede75 on May 25, 2013, 08:21:02 PM

There is no 'breach of contract', any business can perfectly legally refuse you service or delivery and choose to refund your money. How do you not understand this? Hell, a gas station can refuse you to buy a pack of gum if they feel like it. Nothing illegal about that unless they refuse you based on race, gender or sexual orientation.

"Refusing" a purchase is very different than accepting payment, failing to deliver the goods, raising the prices, and forcing a refund on a customer. While it may not be literally illegal, it is scammy.

Actually Swede is right, you need to learn a little about business. I think half of this problem is because you niche grass roots people were previously the only peeps running around Bitconia and now business people are coming in. None of this is unfamiliar to anybody who has been involved in business negotiations and processes for any significant amount of time. BFL doesn't scare us, because we know the pattern, we've seen it dozens of times. We even understand how to mitigate it. It happens, it's not unusual and we're comfortable with it. So grab your foil hats people, we're here and we aren't scared of it. We will not bow to your bloated FUD and we're gonna hash like the well funded bitches we are.

Actually, Swede is wrong. In most states, anytime a product is sold, the seller creates what are called "implied warranties" merely by the act of selling. These are usually simple rules like: the product exists, it does what they say it does, it costs how much they say it costs, etc. Swede might live in a jurisdiction that has limited consumer protection, but since BFL is selling to all 50 states they are subject many state laws and federal consumer protection laws. If Newegg or Amazon were to represent to you that they had something in stock when they actually didn't, they would be violating federal laws and numerous state laws. Or if you bought a device they said existed when it actually did not, they would be in even more trouble. For instance: Ebay marketplace has very strict rules about when you can say something is "in stock", if you violate those rules they kick you to the curb. That is not an arbitrary distinction they are making, it is a necessary one.

"Being around business" as you put it is actually quite common for us engineers on these forums.

The gas station has the gas. It probably also has the gum. Selling products that do not yet exist is not the same thing as refusing service in a retail establishment. This is why Kickstarter won't let you order multiple units and classifies your contributions as donations. Otherwise they eaten alive by lawsuits for facilitating the breaking consumer protection laws.

the Implied contract your talking about is covered under UCC there it the revision (which I understand to be the controlling factor) for the state of missouri:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C400-499/40002A0505.HTM

Quote

400.2A-505. (1) On cancellation of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged, but any right based on prior default or performance survives, and the cancelling party also retains any remedy for default of the whole lease contract or any unperformed balance.

(2) On termination of the lease contract, all obligations that are still executory on both sides are discharged but any right based on prior default or performance survives.

(3) Unless the contrary intention clearly appears, expressions of "cancellation", "rescission", or the like of the lease contract may not be construed as a renunciation or discharge of any claim in damages for an antecedent default.

(4) Rights and remedies for material misrepresentation or fraud include all rights and remedies available under this Article for default.

(5) Neither rescission nor a claim for rescission of the lease contract nor rejection or return of the goods may bar or be deemed inconsistent with a claim for damages or other right or remedy.

Now I'm no lawyer, so correct me where you see fit to argue point or redirect me to where you feel I haven't looked.

but it seems that (1) says that cancellation relieves both parties from "obligations that are still executory", so unless he can prove prior breach, there is no recourse

please let me know if I miss something.

also christians(xian)'s order http://i.imgur.com/V2b80U1.jpg (he was nice enough to post it one day in a moment of douche bag braggery)
was placed when the web site appeared like this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120628113158/http://www.butterflylabs.com/order-form-bitforce-sc-single/

it cleared stated "currently scheduled for October", which clearly show "scheduled" not "shipping" which is a huge difference.

so that's out as point of default

and since he and everybody else who didn't just accept the refund agreed to the new specification in accordance with UCC, there isn't much else to say... .

now I'm no lawyer and this isn't to be construed as legal advice, feel free to point to the mistakes, as I would enjoy learning through interaction.

truly