-
Welcome to DNForum.com™ - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars
If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the oldest global domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 45,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, using our free in-house built tools, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.
Ouch.com (for sell or reselling)
- Thread starter domainp
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,589
- Reaction score
- 24
"John, so you think Atillo should give the domain back to domainp and wash his hands of this matter? As easy as that sounds, it just doesn't seem like the right move to me."
It depends on what you mean by "right". There are things that one can do which minimize one's potential legal exposure. There are things that one can do which resonate with one's personal morals... There is a whole world of "right" things to do - they do not always point in the same direction.
There are facts in dispute here, and resolving them on the basis of whatever possibly forged, possibly not, documentation is provided to Attillio and letting him be judge and jury is not the right answer. Someone earlier said "stolen property goes back to its original owner". Well, it doesn't do that on its own, and adding a possibly flawed judgment by a genuinely well-meaning person does not guarantee the "right" result (according to one's definition of right). If appropriate authorities can order it transferred from Attillio to someone who "should" have it, then they can do the same thing no matter where the domain ends up after Atillio gives it back to the person he did not pay for the domain.
I did not say that Atillio stole the domain. However, amidst the competing assertions here, we know that Atillio obtained the domain on his basis of a promise to pay $3,000 in exchange for that domain. We also know that Atillio did not pay the $3,000 he promised to pay for the domain name. Now, please hear me, he may well have sound moral reasons for wanting not to carry out his promise. However, what we agree upon is that he did not carry out his promise, and he has kept control of the domain name. I have no quarrel with a moral argument that says he is doing the "right" thing there. But you have to understand that one is making a moral choice in breaking one promise because one believes there is a reason to break that promise.
Sentimentally, I agree that domainp's story does not fit together well, and it is clear that when he told opencg he could transfer it right now that domainp knew he did not have the power to do so. That tells us that domainp has a capacity for saying things that are not true. I am also confused by the apparent situation of offering a domain name on eBay while at the same time offering it for bids elsewhere. That is not how one conducts an auction, but I may have the chronology confused a bit.
None of my reservations about domainp's candor changes the fact that Atillio promised to pay $3,000 for a domain name, and has obtained the domain name without following through on his promise. I agree that one thing he might do is to simply maintain the status quo until the dust settles and an appropriate authority makes a determination. I disagree that he should appoint himself as that authority - an error in judgment on his part renders him liable, whereas following the order of a competent authority does not. Either way, there does not seem to be tremendous urgency here.
And absolutely nothing would change my view that a payment of $3,000 from opencg to domainp has the effect of obligating Atillio to transfer the domain name to opencg. If domainp had accepted an offer to sell the domain name to opencg prior to accepting Atillio's offer, then why on earth did domainp transfer the domain name to Atillio?
Back on the subject of "right" here, there is one party which clearly admits having failed to comply with the terms of a contract, and that is, unfortunately, Atillio. While Atillio may have a defense of illegality or some other intervening cause for not performing the contract, I do not see how an allegation that domainp stole the domain name entitles Atillio to maintain possession of it. As we all agree, the one person who is known NOT to have paid anything for the domain name is Atillio - and it is an odd fact that he is the one who happens to have it at the moment.
So, yes, I perfectly understand Atillio's inclination not to do anything at the moment. But the idea that the domain name should belong to the one guy who admits not having paid for it should at least cause some cognitive dissonance in the minds of those who see things with apparent moral clarity.
It depends on what you mean by "right". There are things that one can do which minimize one's potential legal exposure. There are things that one can do which resonate with one's personal morals... There is a whole world of "right" things to do - they do not always point in the same direction.
There are facts in dispute here, and resolving them on the basis of whatever possibly forged, possibly not, documentation is provided to Attillio and letting him be judge and jury is not the right answer. Someone earlier said "stolen property goes back to its original owner". Well, it doesn't do that on its own, and adding a possibly flawed judgment by a genuinely well-meaning person does not guarantee the "right" result (according to one's definition of right). If appropriate authorities can order it transferred from Attillio to someone who "should" have it, then they can do the same thing no matter where the domain ends up after Atillio gives it back to the person he did not pay for the domain.
I did not say that Atillio stole the domain. However, amidst the competing assertions here, we know that Atillio obtained the domain on his basis of a promise to pay $3,000 in exchange for that domain. We also know that Atillio did not pay the $3,000 he promised to pay for the domain name. Now, please hear me, he may well have sound moral reasons for wanting not to carry out his promise. However, what we agree upon is that he did not carry out his promise, and he has kept control of the domain name. I have no quarrel with a moral argument that says he is doing the "right" thing there. But you have to understand that one is making a moral choice in breaking one promise because one believes there is a reason to break that promise.
Sentimentally, I agree that domainp's story does not fit together well, and it is clear that when he told opencg he could transfer it right now that domainp knew he did not have the power to do so. That tells us that domainp has a capacity for saying things that are not true. I am also confused by the apparent situation of offering a domain name on eBay while at the same time offering it for bids elsewhere. That is not how one conducts an auction, but I may have the chronology confused a bit.
None of my reservations about domainp's candor changes the fact that Atillio promised to pay $3,000 for a domain name, and has obtained the domain name without following through on his promise. I agree that one thing he might do is to simply maintain the status quo until the dust settles and an appropriate authority makes a determination. I disagree that he should appoint himself as that authority - an error in judgment on his part renders him liable, whereas following the order of a competent authority does not. Either way, there does not seem to be tremendous urgency here.
And absolutely nothing would change my view that a payment of $3,000 from opencg to domainp has the effect of obligating Atillio to transfer the domain name to opencg. If domainp had accepted an offer to sell the domain name to opencg prior to accepting Atillio's offer, then why on earth did domainp transfer the domain name to Atillio?
Back on the subject of "right" here, there is one party which clearly admits having failed to comply with the terms of a contract, and that is, unfortunately, Atillio. While Atillio may have a defense of illegality or some other intervening cause for not performing the contract, I do not see how an allegation that domainp stole the domain name entitles Atillio to maintain possession of it. As we all agree, the one person who is known NOT to have paid anything for the domain name is Atillio - and it is an odd fact that he is the one who happens to have it at the moment.
So, yes, I perfectly understand Atillio's inclination not to do anything at the moment. But the idea that the domain name should belong to the one guy who admits not having paid for it should at least cause some cognitive dissonance in the minds of those who see things with apparent moral clarity.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,589
- Reaction score
- 24
"I continued with the deal and atillio did not send domainp any funds whatsoever"
OpenCG, this makes no sense at all as a matter of basic contract. You need to understand two things.
1. Offer and Acceptance
When domainp transferred the domain name to Atillio, it was in acceptance of Atillio's offer. That acceptance had the effect of killing any prior offer domainp may have received, if such offer was not accepted prior to acceptance of Atillio's offer.
2. Parties to a Contract
You made a deal with domainp. Whether domainp had the capacity to perform that deal is a problem between you and domainp. You did not make a deal with Atillio, who had control of the domain name when you claim that domainp accepted your offer. There is absolutely nothing that transpired between you and Atillio which obligates Atillio to do anything for you.
Now, sure, if Atillio realizes that he has breached his obligation to pay $3,000 to domainp and returns the domain name to domainp, then domainp might very well transfer the domain name to you. But the deal between domainp and Atillio was between them, and them alone. The deal between domainp and you was between domainp and you alone. If domainp cannot deliver on his promise to transfer the domain name to you, then you should be looking to get your $3,000 back, and not claiming that uninvolved third parties are obligated to you under a contract they never made with you.
Not all of the issues are clear here. But some are much clearer than others. This particular issue is a legal no-brainer.
OpenCG, this makes no sense at all as a matter of basic contract. You need to understand two things.
1. Offer and Acceptance
When domainp transferred the domain name to Atillio, it was in acceptance of Atillio's offer. That acceptance had the effect of killing any prior offer domainp may have received, if such offer was not accepted prior to acceptance of Atillio's offer.
2. Parties to a Contract
You made a deal with domainp. Whether domainp had the capacity to perform that deal is a problem between you and domainp. You did not make a deal with Atillio, who had control of the domain name when you claim that domainp accepted your offer. There is absolutely nothing that transpired between you and Atillio which obligates Atillio to do anything for you.
Now, sure, if Atillio realizes that he has breached his obligation to pay $3,000 to domainp and returns the domain name to domainp, then domainp might very well transfer the domain name to you. But the deal between domainp and Atillio was between them, and them alone. The deal between domainp and you was between domainp and you alone. If domainp cannot deliver on his promise to transfer the domain name to you, then you should be looking to get your $3,000 back, and not claiming that uninvolved third parties are obligated to you under a contract they never made with you.
Not all of the issues are clear here. But some are much clearer than others. This particular issue is a legal no-brainer.
- Joined
- May 6, 2002
- Messages
- 684
- Reaction score
- 6
Great post John, thanks for taking the time to explain in the manner you did.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
Actually, guys, I don't understand WHY Atillio is still holding the domain name? He said by phone to me:
"I will send you the cash or will transfer back the domain name"
His breaking his words right now, and that's the main point. Did he tell me that he'll take it for some "unknown thoughts" that can appear in his head?
"I will send you the cash or will transfer back the domain name"
His breaking his words right now, and that's the main point. Did he tell me that he'll take it for some "unknown thoughts" that can appear in his head?
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2002
- Messages
- 738
- Reaction score
- 0
I guess it gives you a different perspective being a lawyer, rather than being right....
Nothing personal John...LOL
It's one way to view the world - Since it is not our day to day job, we can tend to be more "romantic" about it....
Nothing personal John...LOL
It's one way to view the world - Since it is not our day to day job, we can tend to be more "romantic" about it....
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 1,578
- Reaction score
- 0
I think I am with you on this one LewR. The domain needs to be returned back to the cat who got it for a godaddy backorder if he wasn't paid for it. Then he can resell it to whomever he wants. I sure hope he waits for the money to clear next time.
- Joined
- May 6, 2002
- Messages
- 684
- Reaction score
- 6
I still hope Atillio holds it until things are clarified. There are still way too many blanks to be filled in. For instance, why does domainp not care if it was legal or not in reference to how he acquired the domain but is yelling foul here?
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 0
John how did AOL buy Time Warner did they do it by holding Time Warner Assests no!
They did it with money and I did the domain with money also and where the heck is attlio or whatever they call him he is missing and his phone numbers dont work thats the point he is holding up I and domainp progress you buy you sell thats it regardless of the known issues that are arising and also its illegal to take the law into your own hands anyway atlio is wrong all the way he needs to transfer the domain to the buyer he failed is contract and decided to go on a redemtion period for a name that i bought already he is worse then wls!!!
They did it with money and I did the domain with money also and where the heck is attlio or whatever they call him he is missing and his phone numbers dont work thats the point he is holding up I and domainp progress you buy you sell thats it regardless of the known issues that are arising and also its illegal to take the law into your own hands anyway atlio is wrong all the way he needs to transfer the domain to the buyer he failed is contract and decided to go on a redemtion period for a name that i bought already he is worse then wls!!!
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
He doesn't have any rights to hold the domain name.
1. He didn't tell me anything about it (so he's braking the deal)
2. May be you'll transfer me all of your domain names to let me verify the details - i think there are too much blank fields in your domain. Your login seems to be suspicious too.
I think that he needs to give domain back to me cause if any1 got problems - let it be ME.
Just leave the things as they were.
What do you guys think?
1. He didn't tell me anything about it (so he's braking the deal)
2. May be you'll transfer me all of your domain names to let me verify the details - i think there are too much blank fields in your domain. Your login seems to be suspicious too.
I think that he needs to give domain back to me cause if any1 got problems - let it be ME.
Just leave the things as they were.
What do you guys think?
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2003
- Messages
- 171
- Reaction score
- 0
Opencg why are you steadily shouting as to the whereabouts of Attillio? People do have a life and visit the outdoors on a daily basis. More thank likely he knows nothing about the deal made by you and Domainp and anything that has transpired on this thread today.
You impatiently gave away $3k now patiently wait for the response of of Attillio.
You impatiently gave away $3k now patiently wait for the response of of Attillio.
- Joined
- May 6, 2002
- Messages
- 684
- Reaction score
- 6
domainp, have you contacted your friend yet to find out why or if he stopped payment on the echeck. That seems like a very simple solution. If he did, he can pay you back, you can pay opencg back and the name can go back to the rightful owner. If he did not stop payment, he could show you that he paid..after all, he IS your friend right?? It's all so easy!!
- Status
Similar threads
