BlueHippo Funding, An Insider Filled Me In on the Fraudulent Scheme! Windsor Mill Maryland

I will use your thinking as some thing to get my money back.
I am getting a piggy bank today!

The reporter and the other rebuttalist who mentioned the contract issues raised some excellent, and possibly legally valid points.

Both of your ideas were pretty solid. However, the theory of unjust enrichment generally only applies in the absence of a contract. And, even if it could be applied when a contract exists, it would have to be a legal "last resort" (or, for my fellow lawyers out there, used only if there is no adequate remedy at law).

The reporter mentioned that, in order for a contract to be enforceable, there must be a benfit on both sides. In the absence of a benefit and a corresponding detriment on both sides (technically referred to as "consideration"), there is no legally binding agreement (except for in very limited circumstances).

In the case at hand, the consumer paid in a significant amount on a quasi "layaway" plan.

The seller would argue that the extension of a credit agreement and the placing of money toward the computer is the benefit extended. But I don't know if this argument would fly when no credit has in fact been extended (because you haven't received anything yet) and when no equity is established in the product.

Now, had the seller tendered the computer to you, they would be fully within their legal rights to demand whatever they charging.

But without ever delivering a product, it seems to me like they should be restricted to recovery of their actual damages, which would be the costs of administering your agreement and possibly lost profits.

Personally, I would send them a certified letter and offer to accept a 75% refund in settlement of your claim. If they don't comply, take them to small claims court. Getting yourself a lawyer would, of course, be the best idea.

Clearly, nobody here understands credit or this bluehippo deal. I have read several of the numerous complaints, and all of the people have one thing in common. They called this company and agreed to buy a computer from them. In order to do that, the company requires your checking account number.

Right away, they will start taking money out of your account. What do you people expect? Anyway, they do what is known as a demand draft from your checking account. First, they take $99 out. Then, they take out $40 more EACH WEEK. If you go to their website, you can see the deal. I don't understand why any of the bank deductions come as a big surprise to anyone.

Here's how the hippo deal works. You must pay this company $400 BEFORE you get any computer. Then, after you have sent them the $400 in payments, they will ship you an el-cheapo $250 computer. So, make sure you understand this part. You PAY them $400 for a $250 computer. You could have bought the exact same computer if you didn't get involved in the bluehippo deal. All you would have had to do is save up $250 and walk in to a computer store and buy the thing.

Now, after you get your $250 computer, you STILL owe the company another $1600. Altogether, you end up paying almost $2000 for a computer worth $250. You end up paying 8 times what the thing is worth.

A bad deal, you say? Well, what do you expect when you deal with credit?

Let me explains what happens when you buy a house. You find one you like. It costs $250,000. By the time you make the final payment 30 years later, you will have paid back $750,000. That means you paid $250,000 for the house. Plus, another $500,000 in interest charges. Half a million bucks. GONE! Interest charges.

Yet, 50 million people all across the country make this exact same deal. They work like dogs to make the money. But, end up handing it all away like it doesn't matter.

Finance companies love people who give them a free $500,000. Can you blame them?

This hippo deal is the same thing. There's no credit here. You only THINK you're getting credit. Remember, you have to send this company $400 BEFORE they buy the computer and send it to you. They take the $400 you sent them and use $250 of it to buy your computer. Plus, you still owe them $1600 more, remember?

Anytime you buy something on credit, you will pay double or triple. What does it mean to have good credit? It means that you're willing to pay double or triple for everything. That's what credit is all about. That's how credit companies make big bucks.

This shouldn't be news to anyone. Most people already know that credit costs a lot. Where do you think all those rewards points come from? You have already paid EXTRA in ADVANCE when you bought the item. So, all they are doing is giving you SOME of your money back. Not all of the extra profit. Just some. That way, you brag to people about all the rewards you ended up getting. Idiots! Give me $100 up-front and I'll give you back a $30 reward too.

The bottom line is this. Credit is no bargain. You pay a ton of extra money every time you buy something on credit.

If you're sick and tired of handing away your money, STOP using credit. It's no big secret. STOP buying all your stuff on credit. Start paying cash, like me. You don't see me pulling out any rewards card and telling the cashier to charge it.

If you want a computer, here's what you do. First, you go down to the 99 cents store and buy a cheap child's bank. Each week, you put $40 in cash into the bank. Seven weeks later, you have $280 in the bank. Open the bank and take the money out. Now, go down to any computer store and buy the cheapest computer you can find. It'll be around $250, plus tax.

There you go. You've got the exact same computer that blue hippo would have sent you. Without paying $2000 for it.

You do the same thing with cars and houses. Put away $100 a week for five years. That gives you exactly $26,000. Take the money and walk into the car dealership. Pick the color you like.

What's so hard about that? You end up paying the same $400 a month anyway. Instead of sending it to a finance company, you put it in the 99-cent bank. There's not much difference.

The biggest thing is that you only pay $26,000 for a $26,000 car if you use cash. People who finance pay an extra $10,000 for the exact same thing.

You choose.

Pay the cheapest price. Or, waste thousands of dollars on credit. It's your money. You can throw it away if you like. You can hand it away to every finance fool who stands there with their hand out. Of course, you won't be getting anything extra for all that money. All you will be doing is making the finance fools rich.

But, that's your choice, remember?

Credit. It's no bargain for the suckers who end up financing everything they own. At least now, you know.

Blue hippo. Purple goldfish. Or, gold mastercard. Maybe you like the bright shiny colors, is that it? There will always be some credit con-artist who is looking for a way to get your money.

What you need to do is learn to avoid these people and their credit scams. Save up your money. Buy the things you need. Pay cash. So simple! Forget these bluehippos. You already know it's a scam if it has anything to do with credit. This is not rocket science, folks!

Mike, You obviously dont understand the situation. Of course you have to pay the contract price for something you "receive". But most often BlueHippo only receives money and the customer receives nothing!
You must know someone at the BlueHippo.
Folks, dont trust Mike from Radford, VA.

If you signed a contract to buy a computer for payments totalling $1500, and the company delivers the specified computer on time according to the contract, you owe the payments.

It doesn't matter what the computer is actually worth on the open market. You agreed to buy it for $1500, so that is what you have to pay for it.

Blue Hippo is doing a lot better than they used to if they are actually delivering the computers now. It is a total ripoff, but it's also nice and legal.

I am responding to the person asking about contracts and the ability to enforce them.

I looked up the subject on a search engine.
Not all contracts signed are enforcable. Example: Party tan and Party orange enter into a contract whereby Party tan agrees to give Party orange some depends diapers and Party orange simply agrees to receive the diapers. If party tan is perform on the contract and the other party orange is only to receive the benefit of the contract with no performance for the benefit of anyone and where party orange risks nothing or does nothing as a condition precedent to their own detriment the contract is not enforceable.

It is kind of like a parent promising to pay their kid $20 for every A they get on their report card and they put it in writing with signatures. The kid cant enforce it against the parent because the kid risked nothing and suffered no detriment nor did the kid benefit the parent in any way.

Trust me. Simply because you sign a contract with some one does not always make it enforceable. The Bluehippo situation is clearly a situation where the contract is clearly questionable until Bluehippo performs or does something to their detriment. Bluehippo has already made a profit and benefitted from the customer after it has shipped the computers. The customer only benefits when they receive if they receive a computer from BlueHippo. Their contract only has teeth when they actually ship the computer.

The CEO would gladly sign a contract with you where he agrees to pay you a $100 a month for life and you have to do nothing but receive the money with no conditions to meet before you receive the money. He knows it is not going to be enforced in court.

I am responding to the person asking about contracts and the ability to enforce them.

I looked up the subject on a search engine.
Not all contracts signed are enforcable. Example: Party tan and Party orange enter into a contract whereby Party tan agrees to give Party orange some depends diapers and Party orange simply agrees to receive the diapers. If party tan is perform on the contract and the other party orange is only to receive the benefit of the contract with no performance for the benefit of anyone and where party orange risks nothing or does nothing as a condition precedent to their own detriment the contract is not enforceable.

It is kind of like a parent promising to pay their kid $20 for every A they get on their report card and they put it in writing with signatures. The kid cant enforce it against the parent because the kid risked nothing and suffered no detriment nor did the kid benefit the parent in any way.

Trust me. Simply because you sign a contract with some one does not always make it enforceable. The Bluehippo situation is clearly a situation where the contract is clearly questionable until Bluehippo performs or does something to their detriment. Bluehippo has already made a profit and benefitted from the customer after it has shipped the computers. The customer only benefits when they receive if they receive a computer from BlueHippo. Their contract only has teeth when they actually ship the computer.

The CEO would gladly sign a contract with you where he agrees to pay you a $100 a month for life and you have to do nothing but receive the money with no conditions to meet before you receive the money. He knows it is not going to be enforced in court.

I am responding to the person asking about contracts and the ability to enforce them.

I looked up the subject on a search engine.
Not all contracts signed are enforcable. Example: Party tan and Party orange enter into a contract whereby Party tan agrees to give Party orange some depends diapers and Party orange simply agrees to receive the diapers. If party tan is perform on the contract and the other party orange is only to receive the benefit of the contract with no performance for the benefit of anyone and where party orange risks nothing or does nothing as a condition precedent to their own detriment the contract is not enforceable.

It is kind of like a parent promising to pay their kid $20 for every A they get on their report card and they put it in writing with signatures. The kid cant enforce it against the parent because the kid risked nothing and suffered no detriment nor did the kid benefit the parent in any way.

Trust me. Simply because you sign a contract with some one does not always make it enforceable. The Bluehippo situation is clearly a situation where the contract is clearly questionable until Bluehippo performs or does something to their detriment. Bluehippo has already made a profit and benefitted from the customer after it has shipped the computers. The customer only benefits when they receive if they receive a computer from BlueHippo. Their contract only has teeth when they actually ship the computer.

The CEO would gladly sign a contract with you where he agrees to pay you a $100 a month for life and you have to do nothing but receive the money with no conditions to meet before you receive the money. He knows it is not going to be enforced in court.

I am responding to the person asking about contracts and the ability to enforce them.

I looked up the subject on a search engine.
Not all contracts signed are enforcable. Example: Party tan and Party orange enter into a contract whereby Party tan agrees to give Party orange some depends diapers and Party orange simply agrees to receive the diapers. If party tan is perform on the contract and the other party orange is only to receive the benefit of the contract with no performance for the benefit of anyone and where party orange risks nothing or does nothing as a condition precedent to their own detriment the contract is not enforceable.

It is kind of like a parent promising to pay their kid $20 for every A they get on their report card and they put it in writing with signatures. The kid cant enforce it against the parent because the kid risked nothing and suffered no detriment nor did the kid benefit the parent in any way.

Trust me. Simply because you sign a contract with some one does not always make it enforceable. The Bluehippo situation is clearly a situation where the contract is clearly questionable until Bluehippo performs or does something to their detriment. Bluehippo has already made a profit and benefitted from the customer after it has shipped the computers. The customer only benefits when they receive if they receive a computer from BlueHippo. Their contract only has teeth when they actually ship the computer.

The CEO would gladly sign a contract with you where he agrees to pay you a $100 a month for life and you have to do nothing but receive the money with no conditions to meet before you receive the money. He knows it is not going to be enforced in court.

Here is Salt Lake City there is a place that sells inexpensive computers. These are computers that are from the factory and are being sold just to get rid of them.. I bought a complete system for under 300 dollars. It's not a Cadillac but for internet and email it works fantastic! This Blue-Hippo stuff is crazy. Don't buy anything from them unless you want to pay 10 times more than it's worth. Cheers!!

The illustration you made of Mr. Kelley and the horse was terrific! It really helped me understand what your complaint is about, and I do agree that yes, it is morally wrong that if the scenario you presented is correct and Blue Hippo is, indeed, receiving "unjust enrichment".

However, if you signed a contract that stated there is a non-refundable amount to be put up-front, and the other various restrictions, I'm not sure there's anything illegal about the contract.

The only kind of legal knowledge I have is as a consumer, so, not much!, and I know that there have been civil cases where a person was successfully sued for "unjust enrichment", in that no service was performed, or product provided by the person who received the money.

But really concerned that if a person signs a contract which precisely spells out those guidelines, well, that's agreeing to the terms, whether they are ethical or not.

For my own example, if a contract says "I will pay XXX $100 a week for the rest of my natural life", and someone signs it, doesn't that signify their agreement to the contract, whether ethical, or in spite of no services or product being rendered? Isn't that like an alimony agreement, in that the recipient isn't providing a service or product, but is to receive a stated amount for a specified period of time, upon signing by the person to be making the payments?

Any help would sure be appreciated in figuring out these kinds of agreements. Thank you.