cctld Beware of networks.ca owner

[6sons]

The seller of this domain failed to complete our agreement at sedo. Sedo cancelled the transaction after he failed to transfer/respond to them etc. Right now the domain resolves to a sedo page with a for sale link!!! Unbelievable that they would allow even a moment of this. I know of several other domains this guy owns including ti.ca. This cost me money to send and receive the wired funds not to mention a lot of my time. If you know of this seller and have had a similar experience please contact me.:veryangry:

 

[TheLegendaryJP]

Sorry to hear this Wayne.

 

[6sons]

It just came to my attention that he has since "sold" this domain through sedo. Thats interesting since we have an enforceable contract that says he sold it to us.

 

[6sons]

Update: Here is the notice I received from Sedo at that time. I have added the " " :

"Transaction cancelled by Sedo
It has not been possible for us to complete the transfer due to the fact that the seller did not fulfill his part of the transaction. You can take legal action against the seller since he failed to fulfill his part of the contract, therefore we have made his contact details available in your sedo contract.

The suspension of the transfer in no way affects the Purchase & Sales Agreement between the seller and the buyer. Sedo will place the transfer on hold for as long as is necessary for you to complete this transaction."


Persuant to a call to them yesterday Sedo is investigating their own role in this.

 

[axeman]

IMO you should name this person if they are in fact selling this domain to someone else even though you have legally bought it.......as usual Sedo wipes its hands.

 

[6sons]

According to the contract the sellers name is Steve Bloedow. More to come including the contract, notices etc depending on where Sedo goes with this and what they can accomplish.

 

[jaydub]

They make mention of a Steve Bloedow of Collect.com auctions here
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/auctio...-auction-report-radio-hosted-by-ryan-friedman

Don't know if it's the same guy but they do have auctions at collect.com if you go there. Maybe he works there or is a rep.
Doesn't seem to own collect .com according to whois but who knows...

This really sucks for you....when is SEDO going to step up and zap these roaches.

According to the contract the sellers name is Steve Bloedow. More to come including the contract, notices etc depending on where Sedo goes with this and what they can accomplish.

 

[6sons]

I dont think that is the same guy as the networks.ca seller. The networks.ca seller is from Canada. I know his brother who is a very upstanding guy. The guy in the link appears to be from the US.

 

[DOTCA]

But DNJournal recorded the sale and wonder if it went through later...

 

[urlurl]

It just came to my attention that he has since "sold" this domain through sedo. Thats interesting since we have an enforceable contract that says he sold it to us.

i see why sedo does not get involved (they just dont want to), but... I find it disturbing that SEDO was involved with the sale to the other person - wtf.

 

[6sons]

i see why sedo does not get involved (they just dont want to), but... I find it disturbing that SEDO was involved with the sale to the other person - wtf.

Originaly the transaction rep told me that there would be an investigation as to whether or not this seller would be allowed continued use of their service. It became apparent to me that no such measure was taken. (domain sells) In speaking with "Colin" (a boss) of Sedo (Mass) two days ago he told me that the transaction rep made an error by not ensuring at least that this domain would not be allowed to be marketed there pending the investigation into the seller. I told him it is more than the rep since I was also asked to complete a survey which I did spelling out that the guy should be banned and nothing became of that obviously.


So now they are looking into this but he said that he can not tell me one way or another what their decision will be/is which I said is irresponsible. However, I did let him know that I have a list of this guys domains going back to 2005 and that I will look again in a week and see if the domains are still resolving there. If they are I will have my answer and I assured him that I will continue to make their actions (or lack of) public in the domain community. At some point I will be posting this sellers domain list (i.e. full.ca, gospel.ca, flick.ca, mothers.ca, disabled.ca) together with the supporting docs/diary, either here or on a separate web page in order to warn potential buyers of his other domains. This kind of action gives our industry a bad name and that would be the least I can do to help others avoid loss of time and money. Our deal for networks.ca was $1,000 fyi.

 

[jaydub]

It now shows last updated as today - 5/26/2011 and it is at Parked

Domain name: networks.ca
Domain status: registered
Creation date: 2001/02/01
Expiry date: 2012/02/01
Updated date: 2011/05/26

 

[Irish31]

Wayne, please name the person and his domains here if you would. You are absolutely correct in your statement that this type of person is who we want out of .CA and domaining in general. We have always fought an uphill battle when it comes to credibility and respect for our industry. I want to know who to avoid at all costs.


You want to play this game? Name and Shame then, I say.

 

[DomainSpace]

Yes please post information. I'm surprised SEDO cancelled your deal without asking you what you wanted to do.

 

[TheLegendaryJP]

It never ceases to amaze me how little people value their given name at. It appears as mentioned the reported sale he made was just $3000, apparently the name Steve Bloedow is only worth $2,000.
Networks.ca $3,000 May 11 Sedo
Very sad.

I think you have a valid claim against both sedo and the seller, absolutely. The question now becomes is it worth the legal costs involved as it will likely end up being a matter of principle.

 

[Maxwell]

It never ceases to amaze me how little people value their given name at. It appears as mentioned the reported sale he made was just $3000, apparently the name Steve Bloedow is only worth $2,000.
Networks.ca $3,000 May 11 Sedo
Very sad.

I think you have a valid claim against both sedo and the seller, absolutely. The question now becomes is it worth the legal costs involved as it will likely end up being a matter of principle.

A possible explanation of Sedo's behaviour is that they ended up netting a higher commission on a $3,000 sale than they would have on a $1,000 sale. However, this is a difference of just $200. They must be really hard up for money if this is the case, though I doubt this is the story.

JP, legal action is a very viable thing, as Ontario's small claims court allows for claims up to and including $25,000.

Not that I'm providing legal advice, as I am not a lawyer, but what I would do if I was in Wayne's position is I would threaten legal action against Sedo for turning around and selling the domain, despite using the seller's negligence as the cause for the transaction to be incomplete. The hard part here is quantifying the damages.

I would only threaten legal action, as it would be of great expense for them to come to Ontario and fight the case, whereas settling out of court is done privately and at no expense besides that of the settlement. It's not worth it for them.

However, if you really want the name, going after Sedo would be barking up the wrong tree, as it is out of their control. Where to go from here is really a matter of what you're after; money, or networks.ca.

 

[TheLegendaryJP]

Small claims is an option but like you said, proving loss/damages would be difficult and frankly our court system is a joke, barely willing to even learn what a domain is... I learned this the hard way years ago.

As for sedo and it not being in their control, not so, the name should have never been available via their service once Wayne contacted them.

 

[Maxwell]

Small claims is an option but like you said, proving loss/damages would be difficult and frankly our court system is a joke, barely willing to even learn what a domain is... I learned this the hard way years ago.

As for sedo and it not being in their control, not so, the name should have never been available via their service once Wayne contacted them.

(Again, none of this is legal advice - do not take it as such)

I don't for a second contest that the liability is on Sedo... but the fork in the road here is what Wayne should be pursuing; the name, or money.

Obviously, Sedo couldn't get him the name, since it's in someone else's possession. If he would be happier with a monetary settlement in place of the domain name (which is what I would take, given the reason I would acquire the name to begin with would be to sell it - but I don't know his intended use of the name), then Sedo is easier to go after, on account of the fact that their negligence is much easier to prove, process would be easier to serve (it's much easier for the individual to hide from being served with process), and I think that Sedo would be easier to settle out of court with, since they would be spending high $x,xxx out the door just to get legal defense in an Ontario court, and they have a reputation to worry about as a company, so it could be in their best interests to not let this get to court.

One way to prove the damages would be to attempt to acquire the domain from its current owner. If he wants $10,000 for it, the damages sought could be how much he had to pay to acquire the name from the owner who became such as a result of Sedo's negligence.

Also, I'd be interested in knowing about your experience with small claims... PM on the way.

 

[Ilze]

Also, does Wayne really want to burn bridges at Sedo? Right or Wrong, they would probably "block" his business, which is not right, nor fair, but
a strong possibility if he goes after them legally.

 

[Maxwell]

Also, does Wayne really want to burn bridges at Sedo? Right or Wrong, they would probably "block" his business, which is not right, nor fair, but
a strong possibility if he goes after them legally.

If they screwed me around like that, I wouldn't want there to be any bridges in the first place.

Though, the reverse argument can be applied; does Sedo want to burn bridges with Wayne by ignoring the issue at hand?

This is the problem with negligence cases. The negligent entity can take an "Oh. I did something wrong. Good to know." type of attitude, and for them to realize just what they did wrong, it will take a ton of effort to get your point across.