cedivad is offline so the thread is now unlocked.
The reason for introducing the legal concept of a 'windfall' is so observers will not be mislead by those falsely claiming HashFast hasn't provided full refunds for the small number of Batch 1 customers who requested them.
The reason for introducing the legal concept of a 'windfall' is so observers will not be mislead by those falsely claiming HashFast hasn't provided full refunds for the small number of Batch 1 customers who requested them.
Doesn't matter if you call it a "windfall" or not, BTC refunds for BTC purchases were the original agreement by HashFast
That's correct; it doesn't matter if *I* call it a 'windfall' or not.
What matters is if a judge or mediator calls it a 'windfall' or not.
The legally binding language is in the ToS, not a statement made prior to the sudden and rapid appreciation of BTC from $100 to $600, during a long period of BTC/USD stability.
Query: If BTC went to $1,000,000 would you still expect HashFast to pay out millions of dollars in windfall refunds?
If you answer is 'yes' you may want to check the validity of your premises, because they have led you to an absurd conclusion!
