ChrissyBoi

My understanding of acting as a broker is that you are involved in the negotiations for a sale. I was not at any time so involved, I simply posted an advert and link to an external venue - accordingly I do not believe that I violated any DNForum rules.

As for the sedo rules etc., I have not gone through them in detail, I was mailed that information from the Top Domain application process, and on the face of it, it seems self explanatory to me. It may or may not be superceeded by some other clause, or they may simply have different rules for different types of auctions and sales, it certainly looks that way to me. The part I posted clearly indicated a seller could sell where they had a fixed price right up until start of auction.

As for what my cousin may or may not have violated, that would be between her, sedo and ebay.

As for the sale and situation with DNP, DNP clearly knew that there was an intention to pull the domain from ebay as the sedo auction start time was approaching if the domain had not reached an acceptable price on ebay -- he even posted that information himself. Let me remind you of both the question that DNP asked at least a day before the ebay auction end time, and the response from the seller;

QUESTION BY DNP:
ANSWER FROM SELLER:
The evidence clearly shows what the intentions of the seller were in this matter.
I can also advise that the seller did the exact same thing about two months ago with another domain, and pulled it, and here's the link to prove it:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=140157268536

The simple facts are that at the material time that DNP bid on the ebay auction, he would have known, or ought to have known, that the sedo auction had started. He must surely have known that both auctions were running at the same time, or at the very least he would, or should, have checked - because he raised that very question himself - and the legal maxim of Caveat Emptor certainly prevails here (let the buyer beware!).

He also knew that the answer to that very question that he had asked was the clear intention of the seller to cancel the ebay auction just before the sedo auction started if it had not reached an acceptable price - that acceptable price being the reserve price. At the start of the sedo auction, the ebay auction HAD NOT reached the reserve price, in fact it had not reached the reserve price until 1 hour and 15 mins AFTER the sedo auction started, and by which time it had already exceeded the sedo reserve price!
It was the CLEAR intention of the seller to PULL the ebay sale - the ONLY reason she was unable to do so was because of an urgent family matter (injury to child at TKD training) which required her to leave monitoring the ebay auction and seek immediately medical attention for her child. It is very conceivable that upon hearing of the injury to her child that everything to do with any auctions completely blanked from her mind.
As to whether or not DNP did in fact check to see if the the sedo auction was running before he placed his bid on ebay, only he can answer that. I would submit that it was in any event an irrelevant consideration given all of the circumstances - as the evidence clearly shows that he knew the auction was supposed to be pulled if it had not reached the reserve price, which it had not - there was flurry of bids just before the end of the ebay auction, and during this stage the reserve was breached.

The one thing that the seller is NOT denying, is that there has been an unfortunate situation developed, which she believes to have been occassioned by circumstances beyond here control. Her intentions with regards to any sales were made clear to DNP at least 24 hours before he bid and before the sedo auction started.

Any claims of violating sedo or ebay tos have absolutely no bearing on the legalities of this matter. They may or may not incur some difficulties for the seller between her and sedo or ebay, but that is between those parties alone and has nothing to do with me or anyone on this forum. She has violated no laws. Plying your wares on several places at similar times is not a crime by any manner of means - nor is it lawfully wrong at civil tort.

In spite of all of this situation, the seller has made it 100% clear of her desire to reach an amicable resolution with DNP concerning this domain, and he has been advised of this and what to do to assist in reaching that amicable resolution. He has not at this time accepted that offer or even indicated his acceptance or willingness to accept it - but the offer is still there for the foreseeable time.

From time to time innocent problems do arise in life, even in circumstances such as this. There was never any intention to back out of any deals with anyone because of the suggestion that it did not reach a high enough price.

THAT is the final word and clear position from me on this matter, and I am only stating this here because DNP brought it into this forum, and at the time he did so, he had already been contacted and advised of the desire to reach a resolution with him.

Bringing it into this forum to invite public pillarying of me or the seller has only destroyed any chances he might even have had of any legal remedy, and I would respectfully submit that given all of the circumstances he never had any legal recourse in the first place.

DNP was also pm'ed two days ago with a request to close this thread, following my request to the admins, in which he was invited to have a say in the closing of the thread for a week whilst something could hopefully be resolved. He has not even responded to that.

I rest my case, and that of the seller.

Now where's Judge Judy ........