[probably_wrong]

Regarding point 1: a contract is an agreement between two or more parties. In this case, Robocoin agreed to deliver a working Bitcoin ATM, and Andrew and Rajiv agreed to pay a certain amount for it.

Robocoin didn't do what they promised they would do, or did it badly. Therefore, A&R are not required to uphold their end of the deal - in fact, if they are willing to take the matter to court, they are also entitled to get a compensation for all the extra money they lost.

So even though the contract specifies "no refunds", that contract was broken by Robocoin, and therefore A&R should indeed get their money back.

[spacemanmatt]

I am often shocked when I hear people lean on that "it's in the contract" nonsense. State and federal law have always superseded contract law, or else people could overthrow the government by means of contracts. It's just a ridiculous notion to hold, as evidenced by the ridicule heaped on it here, reddit, and twitter.