News:

SMF - Just Installed!


Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
Success Stories / Re: Successful recovery of all funds and legal costs
« Last post by Somebozo on May 25, 2016, 08:05:32 pm »
So has anyone else had success in going this route? I just got my judgement on the 10th of May
92
Alpha's Counter-attacks / Re: Latest Alpha Defense
« Last post by Somebozo on May 25, 2016, 08:01:49 pm »
Good to hear someones else is bringing them to suite. Any news luck getting them to pay since acquiring the judgement?
93
Alpha's Counter-attacks / Re: Latest Alpha Defense
« Last post by johannes on May 19, 2016, 04:50:56 pm »
Thank you!

Please keep us updated...

Good luck   ;)
94
Alpha's Counter-attacks / Latest Alpha Defense
« Last post by khan on March 31, 2016, 12:08:24 pm »
Defence and Counterclaim
Claim number
Cxxxxx
Claimant
Mr xxxxx
Defendant
ALPHA TECHNOLOGY (INT) LTD
 
How much of the claim do you dispute?
I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.
 
Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?
No, for other reasons.
 
Defence
Background
1. The Claim relates to a contract for the supply of goods entered
into between the parties on or around January 2014. The goods in
question are ASIC Litecoin Scrypt Miner Developers, being
specialist computer hardware for the purpose of generating digital
'crypto' currency in the form of Litecoin ('the Product').

2. By way of explanation of the origins of the project for the
creation and sale of the Product. I had publicly (via online
forums) relayed some of my knowledge and developed a proof of
concept to develop the idea into a physical product. As the demand
increased for my designs, I hired a reputable Indian engineering
company (Dexcel Designs) with a view to them creating a proof of
concept and conducting various tests to ensure that the technology
could be physically developed. Dexcel Designs were paid for this
initial work from my own personal funds.

3. The design, development and production of the Product is part
of a pre-funding project whereby customers’ deposits and balancing
payments are used to create the finished Product before shipment.
The project is the subject of regular online updates, given both
the highly technical nature of the Product and its development,
and the interest in such products amongst online communities
following the markets for digital currency (from where many of the
Defendant’s customers seem to originate).


4. Whilst customers’ concerns are understandable, there is no
question of the Defendant acting dishonestly. Customers’
expectations have undoubtedly been affected by the market value of
Litecoin in the intervening period, but again that is not
something for which the Defendant has assumed any responsibility.
From our perspective, customers have always been aware of the
risks associated with a developing technology.

5. A number of customers have been refunded either as a gesture of
good will or as per the contractual terms for discounted deposit
refunds.

6. Current stage of our development is that we have a full stock
of working chips, and are awaiting system and assembly design
completion from Dexcel. It is currently anticipated that the
Product will be ready for shipping to customers in or around Q2
2016, and customers continue to receive updates on these matters
via email and the Defendant’s

7. From an engineering perspective, the longest, most costly and
complex aspect of the project has been completed, being the design
and fabrication of our chips which are fully tested. The assembly
and shipping of the completed product is all that remains.

The Contract and the Claimant’s Order
8. I refer to the exhibited copy of the Contract for its terms.
There were express terms of the Contract, inter alia, as follows:

a. (Under the heading 'Cancellation & Refund Policy'):
i. 'Within 0-1 month after receipt of payment: Full deposit will
be refunded'
ii. 'Within 1-3 months after receipt of payment: 75% of the
deposit will be refunded'
iii. 'Within 3-5 months after receipt of payment: 50% of the
deposit will be refunded'
iv. 'Please note a cancellation fee of £70 towards handling
charges will be applicable along with any cancellation.'
b. (Under the heading 'Shipping, Hashrate, Price Estimates &
Announcements' [emphasis added]):
i. 'Shipping: Booked shipments will be delivered within Q2/Q3 of
Year 2014. Live updates shall be provided on exact shipping date.
Shipping is worldwide.'
c. (Under the heading 'Pre Funding'):
i. 'We would like to double clarify, this is a pre funding
project. This product is NOT in stock, shipping is expected to
take a minimum of 6 months. Where funds are used to fully design
& manufacture your ordered devices.'

9. The Claimant placed their order and paid the related deposit.
They later paid the balance of the consideration for their order.

10. The Claimant cancelled their order and and requested a full
refund.

The Defendant's position
11. In accordance with the Cancellation and Refund Policy, the
Defendant is out of time to receive any element of their deposit.

12. Alternatively, it is the Defendant’s position that the
Claimant was well aware from the express wording of the Contract
that deposits and other funds would be used to fully design &
manufacture their ordered devices. That is how the Defendant's
customers' monies have been used. The Defendant has not
benefitted from receipt of the Claimant's deposit [or balancing
payment] in the sense that the [majority of the] monies – which
were received for this specific and express purpose – have been
paid away to third parties in order to create the finished
Product, in accordance with the nature of the project as described
in the Contract. The Defendant remains liable for its obligations
to deliver the Product to customers who have not cancelled their
orders.

13. Accordingly, I submit that the Defendant has changed its
position due to receipt of the Claimant's payments and that it
would inequitable for the Defendant to be required to repay those
monies, whether in full or in part.

14. In the interests of avoiding the time and expense of
litigation, and as a gesture of good will (but without any
admission of liability), the Defendant has made an offer to refund
a portion of the Claimant's total payment for their order. Such
offer has been rejected, but I submit that it represents more than
the amount to which the Claimant is legally entitled.

15. In addition, the Contract does not specify a fixed time for
delivery (the times referred to, both specifically and in the
context of the Contract as a whole, are estimates) and I reiterate
that the Defendant is doing its best to procure shipment of the
Product to its remaining customers as soon as possible. I
therefore dispute that the Defendant has acted in breach of
contract so as to allow the Claimant to lawfully terminate the
Contract, or at all.
 
Signed
I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true
M.M.Akram
Managing Director
25/03/2016

========================================================

Claim History

You submitted a claim on 17/03/2016 at 11:20:34

Your claim was issued on 18/03/2016

A bar was put in place for ALPHA TECHNOLOGY (INT) LTD on 29/03/2016

ALPHA TECHNOLOGY (INT) LTD filed a defence on 29/03/2016 at 01:04:17
 
 

DQ sent to ALPHA TECHNOLOGY (INT) LTD on 30/03/2016
95
Success Stories / Re: Successful recovery of all funds and legal costs
« Last post by khan on March 24, 2016, 05:05:43 pm »
hmmm... so no assets or money but they can give an update on 7th january 2016 as follows....

Greetings Miners!

First of we would like to send out our greetings and happy holidays to all ours customers.

We understand there has been some time since our last update, and want to be totally honest with our customers. When we started this project, we had a proof of concept which we publicly released, this design was proven by engineers and was a new advancement in 'Scrypt hashing'.

Upon positive feedback of our design concept, we received a lot of attention and demand from our customers to complete our chip design and produce it into a working and 'mining' product.  We had a clear plan and strategy which was based on feedback from our designers and manufacturers. And we stated to all our customers we would constantly provide news updates on our progress and shipping time.

As you know we have had many unexpected delays which have been out of our control. Such delays are expected when developing a new technology, as an example there is a considerable risks in the chip design being a fail when we reach the tape-out stage at the foundry (a high cost NRE). As you know that our chips passed all stages at the foundry and we have had a large stock piles of chips waiting to be assembled into units.

We believe it is better to take time in delivering this product, than giving up/failing and leaving our customers empty handed as a lot of other companies have done.

We will be repaying our customers patience with our loyalty scheme, and the obvious hash-rate increase which we had already previously given. And we request all customers to be patient and trust us that any delays have been out of our control and we are fully committed and well funded to assemble these chips into a durable efficient device. We also understand there is little or no competition with our product in this area, where a lot of projects and companies have failed trying to produce scrypt-hashing devices. However, we have persevered through any adversities and have not given up in getting our product out to our customers.  We have rectified our issues and done our utmost to not disappoint our customers. We hope this patience pays of to our customers, whether it's through this product or with our loyalty scheme. We have many plans for the future where we believe our customers will benefit hugely from.

Our only recently delays have been in the system-side of things, which is more of a time issue rather than a cost issue. This issue is to do with the power regulation, where we are still trying our utmost to reduce the power required by our overall system.

We have been working  on the stability of our dc dc regulators. Our UK design team have been closely working with Altera to make sure our Enpirion updated design met all the design rules. It seems something about the load characteristics means is unstable. We seem to have exhausted what we can do with these devices and are working on an alternative method where we would not need any regulators at all. This is something highly technological and requires skilled engineers to pull-of, which we believe we have now with our UK design team.

We will be providing technical updates on a regular basis now regarding this issue.

 

Best Regards,

Alpha Technology Team

 
96
Judgements / Re: Group Enforcement
« Last post by fightalpha on March 07, 2016, 10:40:07 am »
I won my judgement. Now that some are saying the N349 is not working. Anybody has any idea on how to enforce the payment?

Did you pay with PayPal?
97
Judgements / Re: Group Enforcement
« Last post by hache on February 09, 2016, 03:28:10 pm »
I won my judgement. Now that some are saying the N349 is not working. Anybody has any idea on how to enforce the payment?
98
Success Stories / Re: Successful recovery of all funds and legal costs
« Last post by hache on November 24, 2015, 11:25:02 pm »
Alpha are replying my emails now saying there are no assets and there is no more money to pay for the judgements... I dont believe it so I am gonna pay my hearing fee and going for my money.
99
Judgements / Re: Group Enforcement
« Last post by fightalpha on November 14, 2015, 10:27:52 pm »
Sorry, this was quite a while ago and we decided not to pursue it.
100
Judgements / Re: How to make Alpha Pay Up
« Last post by fightalpha on November 14, 2015, 10:27:31 pm »
Please, let us know if N244 succeeds. This is exciting!
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]