SMF - Just Installed!


Quick Summary of Alpha Violations
« on: October 02, 2014, 09:34:18 am »
Alpha has violated the following:

Claiming Paypal would be an option for final payment and not offering it.
(Now they say they are offering it at the end of development, but that would be impossible to offer it 8-10 weeks prior to shipping)

One-sided compliance with obligations
They requested final payment for delivery 5/22/2014 and 8-10 weeks have passed and the product is nowhere near shipping.

By requesting final payment for delivery and then pulling the option for credit card transactions only days later
(Thereby forcing buyers into an unprotected transaction.)

Misleading Omissions
By trying to fool their customers into believing this was a business to business transaction without telling them ahead of time
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

Quoting HMRC saying this is a business transaction because mining devices can only be used for mining.
But HMRC actually says:

Income received from Bitcoin mining activities will generally be outside the scope of VAT on the basis that the activity does not constitute an economic activity for VAT purposes because there is an insufficient link between any services provided and any consideration received.

"The customer is not eligible for a full refund or chargeback as per our terms and conditions.. bla bla bla"
Everyone who requests chargebacks through their credit companies being granted them. Alpha is in violation.

By trying to illegally fool their customers into believing consumer laws do not apply to their transaction.

By attempting to limit our legal rights
"Your pre-order is made under English law and under these terms to the exclusion of all other terms you may seek to impose. You and we hereby agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts in relation to the resolution of any dispute or difference under your pre-order but we may commence proceedings in any jurisdiction in order to enforce our rights under the pre-order and these terms."

Not honouring statements made by the trader's staff
Numerous times, all over the forums, A.T. employee Fiaz Malik has assured everyone that delivery of the product would be no later than July 31 (in an attempt to get customers to pay for a product that is nowhere near ready)

One-sided interpretation of the contract
If you request a refund and you are denied and you paid in January, they are violating their terms
Reason: Terms only state less refund at 3-5 months but nothing about no refund between 6 months and final delivery!

Oh, and because today is October 1...
Failure to deliver product or show any physical evidence that it actually exists by the deadline specified in the contract.
IF YOU WON a judgement, join us in this thread:


Re: Quick Summary of Alpha Violations
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2014, 04:50:35 pm »
Selling us a product initially as 275 watts, and altho the increased hash rate is nice... some people can't run 1850 watts on existing lines i would think??