A New Yorker has taken electric bicycle manufacturer Delfast to court over allegations that the company failed to deliver its latest e-bike model, despite a successful crowdfunding campaign on Indieggo.
Electric bicycles have garnered significant attention through crowdfunding initiatives within the industry. As initially conceived, crowdfunding campaigns were designed to raise capital for novel projects in exchange for “perks” or “rewards”. However, over the past decade, these efforts have gradually transformed into de facto sales channels and public relations machines.
Crowdfunding campaigns, typically hosted on platforms such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo, have become a ubiquitous phenomenon in the electric bicycle industry. Typically employed as a tactics to precursively market new electrical bicycle designs before their official unveiling.
While many crowdfunding campaigns for innovative e-bike startups ultimately succeed in raising funds, their track record suggests a common caveat: recipients often face delays in receiving their newly purchased e-bikes, which can extend beyond initial promises.
One of my recent Indiegogo e-bike purchases had a particularly egregious delay, as I was initially promised delivery in October but didn’t receive it until the following March.
While many e-bike crowdfunding campaigns typically deliver their products on schedule, this isn’t always a guarantee. When Jonathan Rapoport, a New York resident, failed to receive his Delfast California e-bike after backing the Delfast crowdfunding campaign, he decided to take legal action against the manufacturer.
Re-launched in October 2022, the Indiegogo marketing campaign carefully aligned its information dissemination with a cautionary disclaimer about the risks associated with crowdfunding.
To qualify for crowdfunding protection, the marketing campaign must meet two thresholds: firstly, it must come from an established e-bike manufacturer rather than a newly minted startup; secondly, the company must have a track record of successful deliveries. Each of these specific circumstances had indeed been satisfied. While successful fundraising and efficient project execution may seem like a winning combination, Delfast’s experience serves as a cautionary tale that neither of these ultimately guarantees future success, as the company’s failure to deliver e-bikes following its crowdfunding campaign’s conclusion starkly highlights.
Rapoport initially experienced a seemingly beneficial corporate partnership, which even led to a prompt refund of his crowdfunding investment, before the arrangement abruptly shifted gears and communication ceased altogether?
“I was initially assured of a refund by the corporation, but they ultimately left me in limbo, making no attempt to follow through on their promise.” He revealed that just last week, he was forced to consider taking the matter to court, an experience that left a lasting impression on him. “In the final week of our courtroom trial, Daniel Tonkopi, the defendant, conceded that his original intention was never to provide a motorcycle to anyone who supported the Indiegogo campaign.” Under oath, he admitted that they had merely supported his company, refraining from purchasing a motorcycle; instead, “we just wanted to help his firm,” Rapoport noted.
Frequent pitfalls exist among crowdfunding platforms that collapse before fulfilling pledges, arguing that campaigns aren’t legally binding sales but rather financial contributions in exchange for “perks” or tangible rewards, as defined by Indiegogo.
On Indiegogo, despite no legal obligation to enforce fulfillment of rewards, the platform’s Terms of Use nonetheless mandate that creators deliver these perks to backers. According to Indiegogo’s website, the platform does not have the capacity to intervene in conflicts between project creators and backers regarding refund claims or perk fulfillment issues. If you’re unable to reach a decision, you may also consult our Terms of Service in the United States. Courtroom of legislation, does the committee need to consider taking any authorized action against the marketing campaign group?
By executing this plan with meticulous precision. After Jonathan Rapoport’s case against Delfast was heard, with Daniel Tonkopi testifying in the company’s defense and both parties presenting their evidence, the judge ultimately ruled that Delfast had defaulted on its agreement to purchase an electric bike.
Because the courtroom doc describes:
Upon careful evaluation and deliberate consideration of all revelations and oral testimonies presented to the court, the following procedural guidelines are established.
The court enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff Johnathan Rapoport against Defendant Delfast, as demanded in his complaint filed on January 18, 2024, in the amount of $2,198.00 principal and $100.00 costs, for a total of $2,298.00.
Judgment in favor of the plaintiff is hereby rendered, predicated primarily upon the testimonial evidence and exhibits received into proof during the courtroom trial conducted on May 23, 2024. The courtroom has found that the plaintiff successfully demonstrated a breach of contract, thereby justifying their motion. Here: The proof shows that on October 2022, the plaintiff purchased a bike and related accessories from the defendant, expecting delivery by July 2023. The Defendant accepted and held the Plaintiff’s funds without providing the agreed-upon goods. The court awards the plaintiff a total of $2,198.00 in damages, along with additional costs. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the aforementioned damages, plus costs. IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Rapoport claims to have had no communication with Delfast and is still awaiting a quote on the estimated cost. While cash is indeed crucial, he emphasizes that it’s really about something more profound. What’s truly disconcerting is Daniel’s glaring disregard for the consequences of his actions and his misguided assumption that he can effortlessly deceive others without suffering any repercussions. He failed to provide any meaningful communication and refused to take responsibility.
As of the publication date, Delfast remains silent on requests for comment.
