Quote from: captin crunch on March 20, 2014, 10:47:32 PM

What worries me the most is the fact that AMT refers to receiving one of their miners as punishment Huh

That is a double edged sword which is why I see it as a win for him. If he gets a defective miner as a "punishment" something that does not perform or has problems, he has his smoking gun to go after them for fraud. This was done in bad faith which again is legally viable. That said since the conversation was had over the phone its all hearsay at this point which wont be admissible even if he recorded the call (two party consent state). On the other hand if he gets a working miner as advertised well he gets what he paid for and really loses ground to stand on...BUT can now use the miner to its intended purpose (disregarding ROI issues court might not consider all that in a speculative market but I am no lawyer just basing it on my own experience in the past)

If he gets his refund, he wins. He gets to spend that money on another miner or whatever he wants after that. IMO not as big a win as getting the hardware. But that's my just me.

Now the only way he loses if he gets nothing which is exactly what is happening now. He has nothing at the present time. In which case he now has to fight a legal battle. Which in a way is a hassle but one worth fighting at least to recoup losses and put them on notice that their customers should not be going through this. Likely they will settle quickly just to sweep it under the rug at this point. They won't be able to do the same tactic again without now coming under substantial scrutiny of the court. Once you settle you set a precedent. I believe (not sure here) they could be held in contempt of court if they pull the same tactic on someone else. They need to correct the bad behavior in order to make good on their part of the settlement as well if it is not merely a monetary settlement.