SEDO ignored request from my lawyer

[namesdencom]

Hers's the deal as it stands now.

Individual posted name on SEDO for $200 firm
I bid $200 firm

Seller cancelled transaction and said "it was a mistake and that they actually wanted $50,000"

I got a lawyer who sent SEDO 2 notices to request them to honor the sale and at the least to ban the member from using SEDO.

to date SEDO has ignored both notices!

About the owner? They got a letter containing the proof and requesting they do the right thing to avoid further action.

They ignored the letter too!

Bottom line ...

I'm out $1000

This person still owns the name and is using it as a parked page offering products from companies that my company has a legal marketing contract to represent.

What the He#l kind of industry / world do we live in where a word means nothing and the laws meand even less?

 

[acronym007]

Lesson #1
Sedo has it's own laws and rules.
Lesson #2
Never forget lesson #1

 

[theinvestor]

Don't use sedo...and you'll be one step ahead of the game.

 

[David G]

Hiring a lawyer for something like that is like burning the money. I am sure Sedo is not going to be intimidated by it in the least.

In the very unlikely event it goes to court you will find out it's real tough to MAKE someone sell you something. You can't sue the owner because you had no contract direct with him. Sedo is also unable to force the owner to sell the name.

All you can do is sue Sedo for Specific Performance and if they convince the judge it was an honest seller error (the domain listing agreement I am sure protects them too) you probably will waste big legal fees and still not get the domain.

 

[Theo]

PM sent.

 

[namesdencom]

What you are saying, and I agree sadly is that since contracts mean nothing than domain name trading selling / training companies by and large are useless. This whole experience has made me rethink whether to represent individuals names on our domain name search engine since it is obvious that if someone does not want to honor their expressed intention than our company gets the black eye for not delivering what we display on our site.

 

[jasdon11]

If a product is wrongly priced in a store, the store is under no obligation to sell the item to you at the lower price. So I'm told...

 

[David G]

I also personally had that happen a few times in the store.

You can't really FORCE someone to sell you something if they choose not to so, with the possible exeception of a mutually signed iron-clad legal contract direct between the parties, and even then specific performance can be a problem.

 

[DomainMagnate]

I had one case where I made an offer for a domain, the seller countered with price and I accepted it (it was in mid $x,xxx), but then got an email from sedo broker saying the owner told them the domain was sold to someone else..

 

[namesdencom]

This is NO case of mispriced item. In fact the owner changed the price alright but not to the $50,000 that they claimed they wanted and therefore obviously knew. Insted they now have it listed as make offer.

Now guys are we talking about ravaging the landscape of the domain name industry and moving on leaving a wasteland or are we talking about conducting ethical business and therfore helping to legitamize the domain name industry for us all?

It is obvious that this person is a gold-digger IMO and there actions do nothing to disprove that judgement from being spot on.

and here is another question? What legitimate store err domain name owner misprices their merchandise by oh ... $49,800 ?

Honest mistake? You decide!

 

[MAllie]

As I understand it the contract occurs in a store purchase when you offer the money and it is accepted. It is apparently true that the price in the window does not constitute a legal offer. It is only if your payment is accepted that there is a contract.

There have been famous cases where goods in a window were grossly underpriced by error. Sometimes stores will honour such mistakes as a gesture of good will, but they are not obliged to do so.

Presumably someone with legal training or understanding will contradict me if this is wrong.

 

[Stian]

As I understand it the contract occurs in a store purchase when you offer the money and it is accepted. It is apparently true that the price in the window does not constitute a legal offer. It is only if your payment is accepted that there is a contract.

There have been famous cases where goods in a window were grossly underpriced by error. Sometimes stores will honour such mistakes as a gesture of good will, but they are not obliged to do so.

Presumably someone with legal training or understanding will contradict me if this is wrong.

Period.

 

[David G]

What legitimate store err domain name owner misprices their merchandise by oh ... $49,800 ? Honest mistake? You decide!

IMO, such a major disparity indicates contrarily it may have been an error.

Maybe he listed a bunch in bulk, all for say $200 to make it quick and easy to get all listed for sale, with the intention of later going back and editing the prices but forgot to edit that one or thought he did and did not realize it was not edited.

I speak from experiene at that because I am a little embarassed to admit that is what I once did at a different venue where I wanted to get all listed fast and then quickly edit prices one-by-one (but that had no impact on anyone since they did not have offers in that short time). How long was it listed before your BIN offer?

 

[INVIGOR]

If you know the name is well worth more than $200 and you're just trying to force the issue with lawyers and such, then in my opinion that's pretty low on your part. People make mistakes and for someone to try to exploit a mistake is just plain crappy. Also, you should read the TOS with Sedo. I'm sure they have covered their butt's better than any attorney can try to wipe it for them.

 

[jberryhill]

If you know the name is well worth more than $200 and you're just trying to force the issue with lawyers and such, then in my opinion that's pretty low on your part.

Nailed it.

"Mistake" is a valid defense to breach of contract. While it is not a favored defense, one of the critical issues is whether there was an objective indication that it was a mistake.

I defended a case last year in which a purchaser was attempting to capitalize on a listing error at Afternic by "enforcing" a sale of a name that was clearly worth orders of magnitude more than the listed price - and which the seller was in the process of trying to correct with Afternic when the "sale" ocurred. The suit was brought in California, and we had it dismissed on the basis of lack of jurisdiction (per the Afternic TOS specifying the appropriate jurisdiction.

Now, here's what's missing in the story. The buyer is claiming that the $200 listing is a mistake, and believes the name is worth $50K. Whether he/she changed the listing to "make offer" is absolutely irrelevant to those facts.

What is relevant, and what you don't mention, is whether $200 for this particular name is objectively a mistake?

Obviously, if you are willing to blow $1000 having a lawyer send two letters - which itself strikes me as utterly overpriced - then there does seem to be an inkling on your end that the name is worth well over $200.

And, it's not a question of whether $200 is or is not commercially reasonable. If the guy wanted to sell for $200, then he should be held to $200. The point is that if the guy is claiming "mistake", then whether $200 is objectively just way too low for this name, then his claim of mistake is credible.

 

[Theo]

How many "mistakes" are we allowed before it's evident that it's a trend to avoid playing by the rules?

In the news recently, a guy was faking a heart attack in order to avoid paying cab fares and restaurant bills.

 

[jberryhill]

How many "mistakes" are we allowed before it's evident that it's a trend to avoid playing by the rules?

If the seller has a history of such claims then, sure, it's a factor.

Given the facts as stated, and since we don't know the domain name, it would have to be a fairly bottom-of-the-barrel name in order to objectively be worth $200.

My question is whether the claim is credible. Do you know whether the same person has made the same claim before?

 

[namesdencom]

As I understand it and you can correct me if I am wrong SEDOS contract states that you agree to represent items you list on their site and to honor those representations.

In other words that you actually mean to do what you agrree to do if they allow you to use their site.

Now again I ask what well meaning person represents a product for a firm offer of $200 when they really meant to offer that product for $50,000

If you are the type of person who is prone to these honest mistakes like misrepresenting your asking price by say $49,800 then you will never understand or accept my point but I have to feel that any ethical domainer would be peeved over this abuse of the system.

 

[Rockefeller]

I think what you're saying is that when you go to the Sedo page it said "Asking price: $200", you made a $200 offer and the seller cancelled your offer?

You can really have anything listed as the selling price at Sedo, you're not obligated to sell at that price. Some people will put a lower price to increase more bidding...but if they get that offer, they don't have to sell it to the first person.

 

[namesdencom]

With all respect the SEDO research numbers indicate a page view of less than 10. Subsequent checks of seo rankings indicate worse numbers than that. In addition and in fairness to the discussion this individual had decorated the parked page to look exactly like a trademarked site that we own.

Any domainer with even the least knowledge of the industry would find the $200 to be a perfectly acceptable price for this specific but rather long domain name.

In addition this domain name has is listed on multiple sites for as little as $200, is listed on other auction pages for $1000 and was reported to be sold at one time for $4000 and event that apparently never transpired.

The whole things reeks of gold-digging IMO You are welcome to yoru own views / opinion of the matter.



the fact that this site listed ads from clients who had contracted our marketing services and that it was disguised (even color scheme) to look like our legitimate trademarked site makes it pretty obvious that this person has / had bad intentions.

My guess, The person found out who we were and figured thay could get more from us.