Has Purism refunded you? Is Purism going insolvent?

[nexusxv]

@ShimmeringLight

y do not reply with a firm date. They kept buffing me off giving me a date some 4-5 months in the future an

Same here, waiting refund for 3rd month, after refusing delivery. They wrote, that you get it after delivery date before, but it is a lie. Guess, they waiting for their fiscal year end to have better report

[irvinewade]

@OpojOJirYAlG

doesn’t really support your assertion that they are making an a claim

Sure it does. That topic argues that exact issue. The fact that @‍whatever has chosen not to weigh in is neither here nor there. The arguments put in that topic certainly shed light on that issue. Is anyone else actually “psychic” to know what one specific poster meant by that “question”? No. So it will forever remain “ambiguous”.

[cbl]

You’re making a fuzz about a simple and understandable question when a company is holding back refunds, thereby violating their own policies and violating FTC rules (an entity they otherwise use for their own “Made in USA” marketing). I have yet to hear about a more plausible explanation why they’re doing that, because no sane company would harm its reputation in such a bad way if they could avoid it. Hence it’s perfectly reasonable to ask why it takes more than 6 months to get your money back and whether they’re insolvent.

Edit:

@irvinewade

Is anyone else actually “psychic” to know what one specific poster meant by that “question”?

That user explicitly told you that it was not a claim but an honest question:

@ShimmeringLight

It is not a claim. It is a reasonable question to ask if debts owed are not paid.

[irvinewade]

@cbl

That user explicitly told you

And I believe everything that people tell me. /s

[OpojOJirYAlG]

@irvinewade

Nope. To delegitimise your claim that Purism is going insolvent.

Well if I take this at face value, then it stands to reason instead of inability to provide refunds by way of lack of available liquid funds you instead are saying that Purism is not providing refunds as a malicious act against the community while holding on to the funds themselves. I think that is a much worse look for Purism than being in a financially undesirable position that many companies in the past have found themselves in.

[irvinewade]

@OpojOJirYAlG

you instead are saying that […]

Probably best not to put words into my mouth. I have said nothing of the sort. Are those your thoughts?

Bottom line: No one here knows anything. It’s all just speculative assertions. It is very rare for anyone from Purism to comment in this topic and I don’t think that anyone at Purism with authority to make a difference to the refund situation has ever commented in this topic.

[cbl]

@irvinewade

Probably best not to put words into my mouth. I have said nothing of the sort. Are those your thoughts?

They didn’t say you literally said it, but that you suggested it. Just like you said OP suggested that Purism is insolvent by asking a question.

Because in the end there are only two options:

1. Purism has the money to provide legitimate refunds, but they don’t do it
2. Purism doesn’t have the money to provide refunds, which means they’re insolvent

It has to be one or the other and none of those scenarios puts Purism in good spot. Ethically option 1 is even worse, so I don’t see how suggesting that option 2 might be what is actually happening is in any way defamatory.

[irvinewade]

@cbl

I don’t see how suggesting that option 2 might be what is actually happening is in any way defamatory

Because it might not be true (and is clearly damaging to reputation). In the sense that one of the defences against a claim of defamation is to establish truth.

The original claim / suggestion was made in December 2022. How many months? years? have to elapse before you would say that the original claim / suggestion is not true?

Fact is the OP has very little idea on this, neither do you, neither do I. None of us is in possession of many facts. None of us has access to Purism’s books. None of us works for Purism. It’s all just speculation.

And certainly doesn’t get anyone any closer to getting a refund.

@cbl

there are only two options

There are others.

[cbl]

@irvinewade

There are others.

Name one. You either have enough money or you don’t.

[irvinewade]

@cbl

Name one.

Sure: The Terms and Conditions are such that, no, actually Purism has no obligation to pay a refund or no obligation to pay a refund within a set time-frame. (OK, that might be two different scenarios.)

For the second scenario, and just talking hypothetically, it is important to understand that “insolvent” means “unable to pay debts as and when they fall due”. There is no requirement to have the cash to pay all your debts now, before they are due.

How many months? years? have to elapse before you would say that the original claim / suggestion is not true?

@cbl

You either have enough money or you don’t.

So clearly that isn’t correct because it is incomplete. It ignores the time dimension. The reality of running a business is more complex.

Also, it isn’t necessarily the case that all customers who are claiming that they are due a refund are in the exact same situation as each other.

[cbl]

@irvinewade

The Terms and Conditions are such that, no, actually Purism has no obligation to pay a refund or no obligation to pay a refund within a set time-frame.

That’s false. The FTC explicitly demands refunds to be payed within a certain time frame. It’s seven working days after the customer requested the refund.

@irvinewade

There is no requirement to have the cash to pay all your debts now , before they are due.

The debts are due. Seven working days have past in almost every refund request.

@irvinewade

How many months? years? have to elapse before you would say that the original claim / suggestion is not true?

Seven working days after any unfinished refund request.

@irvinewade

Also, it isn’t necessarily the case that all customers who are claiming that they are due a refund are in the exact same situation as each other.

Yes, in some cases it’s even worse. For example some customers got their phone delivered, didn’t like it, returned it, knowing that they’ll lose 10% due to the restocking fee and now have neither a phone nor their money back.

[Privacy2]

@irvinewade

@ShimmeringLight

It is not a claim.

And yet: https://forums.puri.sm/t/so-why-are-you-still-here/19611

“And yet” what?

That thread was me pointing out exactly what ShimmeringLight is saying: He’s asking a question and that is different than making a claim. It’s exactly why asking a question is not defamation. You seem incapable of grasping that.

[irvinewade]

@cbl

The FTC

… is only even relevant to a subset of customers?

@cbl

The debts are due.

But that is only one half of the definition of “insolvent”. A company also has to be unable to pay the debts.

There are obvious complications here since we don’t know whether the debts are disputed or the due date is disputed or something else.

I ask again: if someone claims that Purism is insolvent in December 2022 and we are still having this conversation 5 years from then, are you still going to think that Purism is insolvent? (assuming that any claimed refunds have still not been paid) 10 years?

[cbl]

@irvinewade

… is only even relevant to a subset of customers?

No, it’s not. The FTC rules apply to sellers from the US. It doesn’t matter where the buyer is from.

edit: and BTW, each time Purism had to delay the shipment of an order, which they did many times, they were actually required to inform every customer of the delay and get their consent to the delayed shipment. If they didn’t get the consent then Purism was even required to cancel the order on their own and promptly pay the refunds.

@irvinewade

But that is only one half of the definition of “insolvent”. A company also has to be unable to pay the debts

Like I said, if Purism wasn’t insolvent and hence able to pay their debts (in this case provide refunds), it would be even worse from an ethical point of view. They’d basically be granting themselves loans against the loaners will. They’d be lowering the value of their customers money due to Purism not paying any interest and due to inflation. They’d also be risking their customers money, because Purism, like any other company, could indeed become insolvent and then no longer be able to pay the refunds.

@irvinewade

I ask again: if someone claims that Purism is insolvent in December 2022 and we are still having this conversation 5 years from then, are you still going to think that Purism is insolvent? (assuming that any claimed refunds have still not been paid) 10 years?

You do know that it’s possible to stay in business even though you’re practically insolvent? In my country this is called an Insolvenzverschleppung and it’s a criminal offense for which you can go to jail for up to three years.

[irvinewade]

@cbl

debts

So just to be clear … are you claiming that Purism owes you money as a refund?

@cbl

Insolvenzverschleppung

I’m sorry but I don’t know what that means. If it means “trading while insolvent” then sure same here too (directors subject to fine of up to $550,000, or 5 years imprisonment, or both - on top of the potential to have to pay civil penalties and unlimited compensation). But trading while insolvent, and its not all falling apart, for 5 years? 10 years?

Perhaps you would like to tell us what the record is in your country for length of time “trading while insolvent”, if that’s what it means.

[cbl]

@irvinewade

So just to be clear … are you claiming that Purism owes you money as a refund?

Not me, but every customer who requested their rightful refund and haven’t received it within seven working days. Or are you saying that the money now belongs to Purism after an order was cancelled or a phone was returned within 30 days?

@irvinewade

I’m sorry but I don’t know what that means. If it means “trading while insolvent” then sure same here too

No, it means not filing for insolvency in due time. How much time you’re granted depends on many factors but it’s usually a couple of weeks after you found ou that you’re no longer able to pay your debts. But that is completely irrelevant, I just mentioned this because you seemed to be under the impression, that it’s somehow impossible to still be in business while not being able to pay your debts for quite some time. It is possible and that’s why countries like mine made sure that this isn’t legal. And of course we had many cases where companies avoided to file for insolvency for more than 5 years, i.e. they didn’t have enough money to pay their debts but still took orders or whatever.

Edit: also I’m not sure why you’re talking about five or ten years to begin with. Even the most extreme unprocessed refund claims don’t go back 5 years, since Purism did honor their refund policy up until a certain point.

[irvinewade]

@cbl

are you saying that the money now belongs to Purism after an order was cancelled or a phone was returned within 30 days?

I’m saying that you don’t know what representations were made by Purism, or by the customer for that matter.

I’m saying that you have nowhere near enough information to make any credible claim that Purism is insolvent.

@cbl

it means not filing for insolvency in due time

OK, but it sounds like more or less the same thing.

I understand that sometimes a business does trade while insolvent, even sometimes a business is determined retrospectively to have been insolvent some time in the past (maybe 6 months) but … to do it for 5 years? That means no one with enough clout or money or a big enough debt goes to court. Usually it is the tax man that tips the company over the edge. The tax man is relatively unsympathetic if a company doesn’t pay its taxes. The tax man has “unlimited” clout and money. That challenge is of course once each year, at least. Here, the tax man also continuously surveils employee payments (or lack thereof).

@cbl

I’m not sure why you’re talking about five or ten years to begin with.

I was just asking how long this topic was going to go on claiming / suggesting that Purism is insolvent. I was looking into the future, not into the past.

[cbl]

@irvinewade

I’m saying that you have nowhere near enough information to make any credible claim that Purism is insolvent.

I never made that claim. I claimed that there are two options, either Purism is insolvent or they’re not. I also made the claim that being insolvent would be the preferable state, because having the money and not giving it back to their rightful owners is worse than not having the money and not being able to give it back to their rightful owners. Yet you’re still making a fuzz about people who merely wonder if Purism is insolvent, as if that’s the worst thing that could happen. It’s not, they’d be even worse people if they weren’t insolvent.

@irvinewade

That means no one with enough clout or money or a big enough debt goes to court.

So far none of the customers have dragged them to court, probably because the debt for individuals isn’t that big to go after a corporation.

You’re still acting like Purism isn’t doing anything wrong here. The claims to refunds are legitimate and Purism isn’t honoring them. That this doesn’t have enough consequences for Purism should worry you too.

[OpojOJirYAlG]

@irvinewade

I was just asking how long this topic was going to go on claiming / suggesting that Purism is insolvent.

Just pointing out the question asked was “is purism going insolvent?”, not are they currently insolvent. You’re the only one taking a question about direction and changing it to an assertion of current status.

You also seem to be pointing to how changes that happened after the initial question was asked make the question invalid whereas instead you could just use that as evidence to suggest an answer that maybe they’re not headed toward insolvency.

The more time that passes the more it looks to me like purism is not going insolvent but rather was, and potentially currently is, insolvent and is going toward solvency. That is not an assertion of fact, that is my perspective based on the currently available information.

[amarok]

@everybody, just for info

June 6, 2023 email from Purism Investor Relations:

Purism Supporter,

We have crossed over 75% of our investment goal, help us reach 100%!

There is a 5% bonus on any investment into Purism currently, so consider investing now.

Purism is a social purpose company that offers hardware, software, and services to protect privacy, offer the best security, and respect civil liberties. Your support continues to advance that mission.

The primary use of funds is for new product inventory and R&D.

With this investment opportunity we are accepting increments starting at $1000 and allow for easy cart checkout to invest. We invite you to get more information on this investment round including the immediate 5% bonus. Find out how to invest, where we will use the funds, and our current progress in this round at our private investment page at https://puri.sm/ir/convertible-note/.

Sincerely,

Todd Weaver
CEO and Founder
Purism, SPC

NOTE: We are contacting you either because you have directly asked us about investing in Purism, are on our newsletter, or a customer whom we thought would be interested in hearing about our investment opportunity. If you are not interested and don’t want any more emails from us, please let us know and we will quickly remove you from this private mailing list.

So it’s unlikely that they are going insolvent.