[ajross]

> Why would getting a refund preclude you from buying self driving if/when it's released?

It wouldn't. It would be an existence proof that this isn't fraud: I want the product, they offer it as a pre-purchase with disclaimers, I bought it, ergo I wasn't harmed. Getting a refund now for a product a fully intend to purchase again in the future is called a "loan".

Again, fraud is a crime. It requires damages. I have to have been harmed.

[lazide]

Crimes DO NOT require concrete damages. Civil claims do require concrete damages.

Being convicted of drug possession being one really clear example - there is often no need to even prove the person was aware of the existence of the drugs. Mere actual possession is usually enough (depending on the jurisdiction). And there is no need to prove the person intended to sell, distribute, harm, or even do anything with them. Even if the person literally was taking them to be destroyed, they can still be convicted of the crime.

[throwawayay02]

What if it can be proven they were never serious in their claims about the feasability of self-driving. What if it was all a scam to milk investment money, and yours as well. Would it be fraud then? Point being you were given a disclaimer that was accepted in good faith about receiving a product/service in a reasonable time frame. If that time frame turned out to be 100 years, I'd say you were damaged.

[ajross]

> What if it can be proven they were never serious in their claims about the feasability of self-driving. What if it was all a scam to milk investment money, and yours as well. Would it be fraud then?

Yes, it would. Because then I would want a refund. But that would be asserting facts not in evidence, and I refer to my point upthread about arguing from a conspiracy as a prior.

[lazide]

Where do you see any conspiracy? Because I don’t see anyone referring to one.