"When you "broker" a name, you are in a sense saying that the "domain" is free and clear of any hold on it. "
When you do anything with domain names - and this hangs like a cloud over every aspect of domain name transactions - you also know that registrars do nutty unpredictable things, and that the registration contracts give them a lot of discretion and immunize them from practically everything.
When you sell a domain name, you simply can't be the permanent guarantor of whether the registrar might do something arbitrary and capricious in the future.
I was involved in a domain transaction a while back where the buyer wanted an absolute warranty that if he ever lost the domain name through no fault of his own, that he would get a full refund. I had to advise my client not to make that warranty and back out of the deal, because if you are going to hang your rep on the reliability of a domain registrar, you are not going to live long and prosper.
Here's the thing. If Chris pays Hal the $2K right now, and next month someone determines that this was a registrar error and the domain name was not stolen. Then will you be here again insisting that Hal re-pay the $2K, the remaining installment payments, and calling for him to be banned from DNForum?
One way of looking at the situation is, "Hal paid $2K for a domain name and he doesn't have the name now, therefore Chris owes him money."
Another way of looking at it is, "Chris said Hal would be transferred the domain name for $2K. Hal paid, and the domain name was transferred to him, therefore Chris does not owe him money."
This stuff gets ugly when people seek "self-help". I have seen credible death threats made over allegedly stolen domain names which have turned out not to have been stolen. I have seen hacking attempts, denial-of-service attacks, spam "Joe Jobs", you name it.
"IF it was taken unjustly from Hal by Enom ...the name should be returned to him, correct?"
"Should"? Yes, but that would be between Hal and Enom, and would have no impact on the situation with Chris. Of course, Hal should then continue to pay the remaining installments.
The sense of conclusiveness and certainty on one side of this issue is disturbing. There are some signs on the other side of the issue that are also disturbing. Chris' comment that Hal is somehow slowing down resolution by posting here makes no sense, and sounds more like "shut up" than "help out". Hal can turn Dnforum into his personal blog if he would like, but that shouldn't slow Chris down one bit. Another problem is that Chris correctly notes that it can take time to sort things out, but Chris doesn't seem to have a grip on a definite condition that would resolve things for him one way or the other. For example, Chad's "main" phone is now disconnected (implying that some other phone is not), and Chris has not been able to contact Chad. Well, what happens if Chad has disappeared and Chris is never able to contact him - is Hal supposed to wait forever? I don't think so.
"Hal all I ask is that you are patient; Iââ¬â¢m doing the best I can."
No. You are not.
When you fax Hal a copy of a bank statement showing that $2K has been put in an interest-bearing account pending resolution of this matter, then you will be closer to doing the best you can. Your representation that this was a legitimate deal was a material factor in Hal's entry into the deal. You do not seem to acknowledge that fact, nor your potential liability if this was not, in fact, a legitimate deal. Since you took money from Hal and there is a dispute over the legitimacy of the deal, it is perfectly reasonable for Hal to have to wait a reasonable length of time for the situation to be investigated to the mutual satisfaction of the parties as to the underlying facts. But in the meantime, you are not entitled to that money either.
In situations like this, the recipient of the payment will often simply place the disputed amount into a trust account to demonstrate good faith in that (a) they are not benefiting from the money, and (b) there will be a certain source of compensation with interest in view of the time it takes for resolution. Your failure to provide Hal with this or any other kind of security understably contributes to his agitation with you.
And, of course, DNForum should not take sides in any dispute of this nature. Mistakes happen, and things are not always what they seem. No good deed goes unpunished.
