[bransonf]

On 11/13 they promised to be preparing to start deliveries on 12/15.

If at this point they had not made an effort to reach this goal (placing an order with the manufacturer for example), that is a misrepresentation of fact.

Fraud doesn’t imply malice. They could have jumped the gun on announcing they were preparing to deliver, but doing so would still constitute fraud, especially if this drove an increase in orders.

[Someone1234]

> Fraud doesn’t imply malice.

Legally it does. The discussion was about using lawsuits to break Limited Liability. In that context malice is absolutely required to stand a shot at winning.

> They could have jumped the gun on announcing they were preparing to deliver, but doing so would still constitute fraud, especially if this drove an increase in orders.

There's a large problem with this argument, by the time that delivery "promise" had occurred the exchange of money had already happened. Fraud occurs when someone receives something, through deception, that they wouldn't have otherwise received. By the point of this claim the exchange had already taken place, and therefore the claim didn't indice anyone (i.e. they didn't gain additionally from it).

I think it boils down to people conflating "right and wrong" with "fraud." Nobody is saying this business was run well or they didn't do wrong by their consumers. What we're discussing is the legal definition of the term "fraud" and if a hypothetical lawsuit would be winnable.

[filmgirlcw]

If they were still accepting new orders on 11/13 under those promises, that might be fraud. But any of the older backers wouldn't fall under that.

You would have to prove that when the statements to prepare delivery for 12/15 were made, the company had absolute knowledge that no future funding was going to come and that it was guaranteed that they were lying.

If the company was in talks with other investors and thought it might be able to raise in order to ship what was necessary, that's not fraud. That's bad business and everyone should be weary/stay the hell away from any future venture from this place, but that isn't fraud.

[lsiebert]

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe you could argue that such a statement was intended to keep people from doing charge backs or demanding refunds. In any case you probably have enough to begin discovery, and given the cost of a lawsuit and the embarrassment of what that might uncover, the people behind the company may decide it's easier to settle.