legal Warning: Campbell1990 non-paying buyer after $7,000 offer.

[Skinny]

Really sad to hear Acro.

Why bother making high end offers, coming to a contractual agreement, if you can't/won't follow through?

If the buyer truthfully had a legitimate reason to not pay or to delay payment, they would have ample proof and would more than likely be allowed to delay payment.

Doing this is just irresponsible and a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Theo]

Exactly. And that's why I asked for Campbell1990 to be banned on DNForum.

 

[Mark Talbot]

Acro,..keep up the honerable work. Deals gone bad unfettered, look bad in this community of domainers.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

These bloody deadbeat bidders should be banned. They are contract breakers and this forum should not tolerate their presence. I've just been burned twice on Sedo, and these sons of *****es wouldn't be on my forum too long...

 

[allanh]

Bad to have a deadbeat buyer.

However, as an aside and probably not related to the message of the OP, I must say that I agree with airmax that it is NOT cool to send a domain into auction after an agreed price from both parties.

 

[VirtualT]

Bad to have a deadbeat buyer.

However, as an aside and probably not related to the message of the OP, I must say that I agree with airmax that it is NOT cool to send a domain into auction after an agreed price from both parties.

Agreed, this is not an honorable business tactic no matter which way it is spun IMO

 

[katherine]

However, as an aside and probably not related to the message of the OP, I must say that I agree with airmax that it is NOT cool to send a domain into auction after an agreed price from both parties.

He was perfectly allowed to do so as per marketplace rules, buyers is aware that the seller can send the name to auction.

 

[allanh]

He was perfectly allowed to do so as per marketplace rules, buyers is aware that the seller can send the name to auction.

Doing something within his "right" does not make it "ethical". From my understanding of the post, no where does it mention that the buyer was aware the domain was going to be sent into auction PRIOR to the action being taken.

I am in no way defending a deadbeat, but I just don't agree sending an agreed deal into auction without both parties' consent

 

[katherine]

From my understanding of the post, no where does it mention that the buyer was aware the domain was going to be sent into auction PRIOR to the action being taken.

From my understanding of the post, the domain was sent to auction because the buyer was not ready to pay immediately, it was actually a way to give him a few days to get the funds. If you make a binding offer you should be able to pay immediately - if not, advance notification sounds like the right thing to do.
But this is a moot point since he had no intention of buying.

 

[Theo]

I didn't ask for your opinion allanh and afloat. Next time you decide to do business with me, make sure you a) have the money in the bank and b) you lie better about your car accident.

 

[Theo]

Katherine - exactly what happened. The rest is fluff. Still waiting for Adam to ban this a*hole, he's already banned on Sedo.

 

[allanh]

I didn't ask for your opinion allanh and afloat. Next time you decide to do business with me, make sure you a) have the money in the bank and b) you lie better about your car accident.

acro, not sure why you seem to take my remarks personally.
1. When you post on a public forum, you are essentially asking for everyone's opinion
2. My comments were not directed at you as a person, rather at the events.
3. I purchase all my items on immediate payments (although this has nothing to do this post) unless there is a separate agreement

 

[allanh]

From my understanding of the post, the domain was sent to auction because the buyer was not ready to pay immediately, it was actually a way to give him a few days to get the funds. If you make a binding offer you should be able to pay immediately - if not, advance notification sounds like the right thing to do.
But this is a moot point since he had no intention of buying.

Then both parties should have agreed and lay out the ground rule at the end of the agreement. i.e After the buyer told Acro that he can not pay immediately, Acro could tell him that he can either pay now or the domain would be sent into auction. Whether this took place is not clear from the story in the OP.
The point is that both sides should be frank and transparent on what is and what isn't agreed upon and then proceed.

I am not commenting on the fact that this said-person has not paid up, the opinion is only referring to the process of the negotiation. Food for thought.

 

[Gerry]

0 Friends
Campbell1990 has not made any friends yet

:violin:

 

[Theo]

acro, not sure why you seem to take my remarks personally.
When you post on a public forum, you are essentially asking for everyone's opinion

Actually, the only reason I unveiled Campbell1990's deadbeat behavior is in order to document the event so that others don't get screwed over. I am not soliciting opinions or personal thoughts. You chose to distort the facts when you are not a participant in the transaction and are not aware of the exact verbiage in the PM exchange between Campbell1990 and I.

 

[Theo]

The bottom line is that a buyer made an offer that I accepted, he got his week-long extension to pay at the agreed upon price and then lied about having had an accident and a lawsuit, thus becoming a deadbeat both on DNForum and Sedo.

 

[allanh]

Actually, the only reason I unveiled Campbell1990's deadbeat behavior is in order to document the event so that others don't get screwed over. I am not soliciting opinions or personal thoughts. You chose to distort the facts when you are not a participant in the transaction and are not aware of the exact verbiage in the PM exchange between Campbell1990 and I.

I am only going on by the information given. I am not commenting on your character, only on the events stated. Perhaps he was aware and agreed to the domain being sent to the auction , which wasn't stated in the post (and not relevant to the point of the post)?
Appreciate you unraveling this deadbeat's behaviour. As I said, my comments were not related to the goal of this post, so I won't say anything further.

 

[Theo]

Furthermore, I am not waiving any rights to sue Eric Campbell person in a court of law in the jurisdiction of my choice. I am $6k+ short of money owed and Sedo lost their 15% cut. This thread serves only as a repository of my statements related to the event. The personal opinions of everyone else don't matter as there is a trail of PMs and a Sedo auction that is already unchangeable.

 

[brian1234]

Furthermore, I am not waiving any rights to sue Eric Campbell person in a court of law in the jurisdiction of my choice. I am $6k+ short of money owed

Ok, but the $6K hasn't actually come out of your pocket 'though
has it? It was money you thought you were going to get...

And, as for suing the guy, will you really do that? Or is it just a
bit of, perfectly understandable, 'hot air' on your part?

Proving 'malicious intent' on his part will be quite hard anyway,
as it doesn't appear that you can prove a) that he has lied, and
b) that he does this kind of thing consistently.

 

[Tia Wood]

If a person can put down $7k on a domain, shouldn't he be able to afford car insurance?