Domainers Back To The Basics: You Can Only Sell A Domain Once & Yes E-Mails Count
OK domainers it time to go back to the basics.
You can only sell a domain once.
If you agree to sell a domain and the buyer pays you, you have a done deal.
You have to transfer the domain or you can be sued.
and Yes e-mail’s count.
It Seems obvious to me but, I realized this was not the case with many domainers, when our good friend George Kirikos alerted me to the story that the first buyer of CamRoulette.com was suing the original seller of the domain and sent me the link to the discussion on the DnForum.com (post is now closed and taken down)
When I read through the post on DnForum, I almost fell off the chair.
This story needs to serve as a wake up call to domainers who don’t seem to know the most basic principals of contract law.
If you agree to sell a domain and the other party accepts you have a contract.
If the other party then pays you they have performed on the contract, done deal.
In the case of CamRoulette.com he is how the original Seller describes the transaction in detail in the forum post:
“”"Let me start by stating that I am a 20 years old. I’m self-employed and I am a high school graduate. I have a strong passion for the entire umbrella of internet marketing: be it affiliate marketing, PPC advertising, domaining, etc. I’ve been using the internet to make money since I was about 17 and I’ve always loved it.
Last year on the night of December 12th, I discovered ChatRoulette. Immediately I recognized that this was a pretty unique website and that it could grow. Maybe I’m ignorant, but with the platform of the site (being as it is not adult in nature) and the estimation of the bandwidth bill (wasn’t aware that in Flex, the cam-to-cam bandwidth is passed peer-to-peer), I was not under the impression that it would be worth millions. I could see the Alexa Top 100,000, but today it’s almost within the Top 1,000.
Upon some playing around on ChatRoulette, I decided I had some extra money and I’d like to invest in a site very similar. I thought of some little personal touches that could be added to improve the idea of the site right there on the spot, so I went and reserved my domain name. I ran a WHOIS on the domain name c*mr*ul*tte.com and saw it was unregistered. As the primary function of the website it to cam, and not to chat, I figured this made more sense. I spent less than $10 at Dynadot registering c*mr*ul*tte.com and I was prepared to make my little ChatRoulette clone site.
Months passed and I became increasingly busy. I never got around to developing the website and camroulette.com just sat. Exactly two months after hand registration, I received my first offer. It was $275 if I recall, an offer from a guy in Canada. I hardly considered it, but within the next two days I received another offer. This offer was from who we’ll call Person A. Person A offered me $700 for the domain. At that time, I was confused as to why after two months I was receiving absolutely no offers and then within two days I’ve received two. I figured maybe the domain was posted on a forum or something and a few people got an itchy trigger finger and wanted to gamble on the domain. With that in mind, I told Person A that I’d sell him the domain. I actually went as far as to request the $700 payment via PayPal that night.
When I woke up, things were different. The $700 invoice had been paid. I began looking into Dynadot and I was confused on how to push the domain. I haven’t used Dynadot so much. In the midst of this confusion, I received another offer, from Person B. This offer was for $1200 (I’ve confusingly cited this offer as $1400 on NamePros and a few other places, the offer was $1200). Upon receiving and confirming the offer, I refunded Person A his $700. I told Person A I was a little unsure of things and instructed him not to pay me again unless the domain was first in his account. I then decided and went through the transfer and sold the domain to Person B. He sent me $1200, I sent him camroulette.com. For a day or two, Person A was asking me what was going on. I was extremely busy and didn’t respond to any more emails from Person A.
A month passed and ChatRoulette hit local news stations, CNN, Jon Stewart, everything. Person B resold the domain name for $151,000, to put it in short.
This made me feel completely stupid. I was depressed about the whole situation and still today I question why I made any agreements to sell the domain and actually acted upon them. $151,000 would have done so much for me, but a deal was a deal. I sent him the domain, he sent me the money, and to me that is what signifies a deal and contract. I’ve thought on this enough so I won’t sit on it too much here, but it gets a whole lot worse than this.
On the 13th of this month, I received a letter via FedEx. I am now being sued by Person A for breach of contract in fraud, as I had previously agreed to sell him the domain name. The demand on the lawsuit is $150,300 (the difference between the resale price and the price I agreed to sell it to him for). To make this situation harder on me, I live in Florida. I am being sued in the state of NY, and I would have to appear in NY. I’ve never been on a plane and I don’t even think I can afford the travel and attorney fees. The man suing me is a millionaire. He is a gold medal Olympian and he sells diamonds to celebrities. He has a lawyer who has worked for major registrars and operates under one of the most respected firms in NY.
I am just lost here. I’m 20. I have 4 figures to my name. I’ve spent ~$500 in consultations, one with a local attorney who laughed at me and told me I was “screwed” and would need an NY attorney, and an NY attorney who told me that this guy would eat me alive and my best chance is to plead guilty and file for bankruptcy to save myself the stress of travel. I don’t know what to do here. When I look back on the incident, in principle I feel as if what I did wasn’t very smart. I had no idea I was entering a binding contract by exchanging those emails, it was like a casual sale to me. Obviously I had no idea this would blow to a 6-figure ordeal. I don’t want to sound desperate, but I feel like a minnow who is now being swam around by a shark, a 40-year-old guy with an amazing life and all the money in the world, and now he wants every cent I’ve ever had and wants to put a huge scar on my life over a domain name. In the complaint (which I will attach if requested) he cites me as the owner of www.TheCraigSnyder.com – a publisher and consultant. He is very likely under the impression that I have $150,300 and that I am around his age, as if that matters, but that’s not my situation.
I can’t fly back and forth to NY to defend a case I don’t even have a shot with. I don’t even think I can afford a lawyer to aid me through the process. Emotionally, this has troubled me so much recently and I don’t know what to do at this point. I feel as if all I can do is ignore these court demands coming to my home (I live with my parents) and wait until eventually I’m seen as “guilty.” When the demand of $150,300 comes, I file for bankruptcy and put a huge hole in my financial life.”"
So lets recap.
The Seller agrees to sell the domain in writing through a set of e-mails for $700, tells the buyer to paypal the funds which the buyer does and then the Seller decides not to sell to the first guy because he received a higher offer which he accepts from the 2nd guy and then suddenly figures out how to transfer a domain at Dyandot and does so.
Sorry Seller.
You lose.
If there was any question about the case before, your post on the forum doomed you.
Now I’m not going to get into the issue of damages. This is a little more complex and outside the scope of this article.
Besides the problem is bigger than just this one instance.
Almost more surprising than the Sellers post is some of the responses to the post.
Comment 1:
“”I don’t think the guy would have a case honestly. Just because nothing was in writing.”
Comment 2:
“email is not binding. personally i’d want to fly to NY just to beat the living shit out the person suing me… bad enough you lost out on a huge sale but now some sorry loser prick is suing you for it? good god. good luck man.”
Comment 3:
“”I am not an attorney but if he is going to sue you he needs to prove that he lost money. You refunded him the $700 so he didn’t lose any money. Potential income means jack (anyone can say “well, I could have sold it for $$$”). Emails can also be easily manipulated and I don’t think they’re normally taken in as evidence. I wonder if you win the case if you can sue him back for all your legal fees?”
Comment 4:
“”This is a bunch of bullshit. Any lawyer worth their salt will tell you that since you refunded Person A the money with no loss whatsoever”.
Wow.
Really you believe this?
Ok boys and girls.
First of all in theory you don’t need a written instrument to have a contract.
You can have an oral contract for most assets.
Of course with an oral contract your going to have a hard time proving it unless maybe there were witness who heard it.
Second of all, an e-mail is written instrument.
Yes an e-mail is written. Not hand written (although a hand written piece of paper can serve as a contract as well)
A series of e-mails becomes a string of written documents evidencing the sellers and buyers mind set and certainly can become a contract.
Now if you want to claim that you didn’t send the e-mail, that someone hacked into your account or sent it from an e-mail you didn’t control then that’s a matter for the jury. But if you aren’t claiming that type of defense and admit the email were sent and received then you can have a contract based off of them.
Buyer’s have rights and don’t hate on them for pursing their rights.
For the record the following are not defenses to breach of contract:
I’m only 20 years old.
I don’t know what I’m doing.
I got greedy.
I made a mistake.
I have no money.
Also its probably not the best idea when your involved in litigation to go discuss it or post about it on the net.
He is a final comment from the Seller:
“”I would understand if I listed this domain on Sedo or some other domain marketplace. He sent an email to my personal email address that he snatched up from the WHOIS information. My only intent to sell was after I received an offer; it’s like someone came and knocked on my door offering to buy something, it’s not as if this was put up for auction at a local marketplace”"
Funny the Seller mentions this, because this is exactly what happened in another situation involving not 1, but 7 domains which looks like maybe heading to litigation.
In this case the winning bids totaled almost $200K and involved several different buyers.
In that case someone listed domains for auction on Sedo, allowed the auctions to conclude with sales, and after decided it was all a mistake and he is refusing to follow through. (since the seller is not officially in default I’m not going to discuss the exact domains, but will when and if the seller goes into contractual default)
Bottom line.
We all hate deadbeat bidders at auction.
There isn’t one domainer who is going to stand up and defend the guy who takes your $500 bid on a domain to $2,500 making you pay $2,600 just to find out he had no intention of paying the $2,500. Nor will you find one domainer who will defend the guy who bids $2,500 wins the auction and then doesn’t pay for the domain.
Domainers have no tolerance for dead beat bidders why do they defend non-performing sellers?
Loading ...
The guy made $1,400 …. He made the decision, he has to live with it.
@George,
FYI – “irregardless” is not generally accepted as a word in the English language. You mean either “regardless” or “irrespectively”. Pick one or the other but don’t combine them.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
Thanks,
Logan.
@Logan I saw that too…
Just did some quick investigations, seems he was in trouble before on one of his other sites?
http://www.moneymakerdiscussion.com/forum/dating-promotion-methods/14374-mushroomcash-info-shaved.html
Oh, and he owns HamptonInnAndSuites-net.
He also had another project with angry clients. http://www.moneymakerdiscussion.com/forum/dating-promotion-methods/14374-mushroomcash-info-shaved.html
Thanks. I guess we’ve exhausted the topic when we’re debating grammar, instead of the main issue (although http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9796217-1.html might entertain the grammar and typo police).
In any event, today is Memorial Day in the US. Folks should pause a moment and reflect upon the true heroes, those who died to bring us the freedoms we all enjoy around the world, including the freedom to debate issues of great importance, and also of low importance like my typing.
Those true heroes and their families made great sacrifices, and those are the “victims” — I’ll save my energy, words and sympathy for them. And let’s not forget Fraser Brown, the complainant. Someone posted a link earlier to his bio. He’s the victim here, and should be applauded for the time and energy it takes to go through with a court case. In some folks’ eyes, he’s not “sympathetic” because he’s rich and successful. It’s not a crime to be rich and successful — he appears to have earned it through hard work (I don’t know him personally). He might have plans for charity, donating wealth to good causes, etc. No one thinks that because of action X, some totally separate innocent bystander (like a church or charity) is going to have to do with less.
A lot of “rich people” lost money in the Bernie Madoff, and (although that’s totally different, criminal vs. civil), I’m sure there were some folks who were not sympathetic to a bunch of rich guys losing money. But, then they heard that charities too got wiped out, foundations had to close, etc., i.e. they got more information, and they understood better. So, I’ll save my sympathy too for Fraser Brown. He’s not some “Goliath” fighting a “David”, he’s just a victim seeking justice using the only means open to him, the law.
I can’t believe some attorney charged him $500 for a consultation without at least telling him there is NO WAY he is going to be on the hook for the measure of damages being sought here. By breaching the first alleged contract, this guy enriched himself to the tune of $400 – and that’s it.
Right or wrong I still feel bad for the guy.
I think the original buyer should drop the case.
I would never ruin a young kids life over something like this.
Interesting article from the NY Times published yesterday indirectly related to the topic of this blog post. The little guy vs the big guy on the internet:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/us/01slapp.html?hpw
Dean
The article has nothing in similar with this situation
>Believe me George stands up for domainers rights harder than almost anyone else on earth and if not for him most of us, including myself would be in the dark as ICANN proposes policies trying to screw domainers.
+1
George is the LAST person a domainer should be complaining about.
If it wasn’t for him, Verisign/Snap would be running their patented “parallel registry” right now, and you noobs would be paying through the teeth for your domains.
And if you think he’s doing it for 15 minutes of fame, you’re way wrong. so pull your heads in.
Plaintiff eventually developed the same “chat roulette” concept at:
SpinTheCam dot com
Get a perspective.
Would this case have been brought about if domain eventually sold for $2500 or not at all…?
Would this case have been brought about if plaintiff knew the seller doesn’t have a pot to pi$$ in?
The plaintiff must think this Snyder guy is a Schilling or Ham…a deep pocketed whale.
If plaintiff goes thru with action, he gets a pyrrhic victory: Snyder files for bankruptcy, plaintiff gets nothing but wasted money & time.
Move on…no point in trying to get blood out of a stone…
ahh,,, /Drew… I think some others had a hand in quashing the “parallel registry” thing too… ahem.
Im glad JB echoed what I was thinking. The contract was for $700. The maximum damage therefore is $700. Without any terms or stipulated conditions of sale linking any future sale of the domain, there is no way that the breach by the now defendant can be linked to the plaintiff’s loss of $150k plus. In the very least because he was not able to foresee the Plaintiff’s extended loss or, for obvious reasons, was not party to the real value of the domain.
But yes, I guess the spirit of the post is correct, offer, acceptance & consideration (the cornerstones of all contracts) prevails whether the contract was formed verbally, via email or written on the back of a cigarette packet.
In the domaining world its more often a case of caveat venditor… as opposed to caveat emptor
I would agree with JB. I was also thinking that the damage done was $1200 – $ 700 = $500. The seller didn’t know it would be sold for over $150,000 in the future. If he knew, he would not have sold it in the first place.
MHB,
get the corncob out of your ass…
Julia,
I think you nailed it on the head!
Lol! This is nonsense.
Fraser can not do anything!
Because Fraser (refunded) accepted PayPal refund.
Domain market is so flexible, you can sell a domain 1 million or $10 just, it depends..
After that domain sold over $151k
Fraser wants this money, lol!
Did Fraser pay 151k, NO! They paid $700 and they refunded!
If this domain value $151k why they paid $700 for it?
Fraser is not original owner of this domain and Fraser wants $151k for what?
And how come they want $151k from original owner?
Nonsense!
Not logical!
If they got a proper selling contract with original owner of this domain, I can understand this and I could say Fraser should have a right.
But they have not any thing, but they have money and they think they can do anything!
Nonsense!!!
I agree the seller should have followed through with the first buyer and is in the wrong to accept an offer and then refund it because a higher offer presented itself. I don’t think the seller would be liable for the $151,000 though unless you can 100% prove that the buyer at $700 would have had the domain in the same exact auction and had the same exact buyer for $151,000 which seems hard to prove. Even if this does get a judgement at $1400 or $151,000 the fact remains that if the seller is telling the truth about his financial status we will see a judgement and then he flies back home and pays a bankruptcy attorney $1000-$2500 to bankrupt and the judgement will be removed and the first buyer will unfortunately waste a few grand in the process of chasing money that doesn’t exist.
A more interesting thought is, can he force the return of the domain name back for the $700.00 that he did pay. The theory now is, that he, once he paid the fee for the name, had the name hijacked on him and all future sales are poisoned.
anyways, the 150k bid is very fishy to me
Julia nailed it.
And I’m no attorney, but I understand law and the “compensatory damages” claim. All the original buyer can claim is the amount he originally paid – he can’t “project value” on the domain in a court of law.
Leave the kid alone.
Yes, the original seller (‘Seller’) breached a contract with Person A.
‘Seller’ refunded 100% of the money ($700) paid to him by Person A.
‘Seller’ sold the domain to Person B for $1100.
‘Seller’ was enriched a total of $400 by breaching the contract with Person A.
‘Seller’ had NO knowledge of – nor benefit from – nor did he influence – the subsequent ($151,000) sale of the domain by Person B for $151,000.
Person A may have a claim to that $400 enrichment of ‘Seller’, due to breach of contract in the sale of the domain by the ‘Seller’ to Person B.
Neither Person A, nor the ‘Seller’, could foresee, or reasonably expect, the value of the domain to rise from Person A’s offer for the domain of $700, to $151,000 within a month, or so.
There were no contractual obligations either between Person A and Person B; nor between the ‘Seller’ and Person B (other than the sales deal for $1100).
Person A’s claim against Seller for the subsequent $151,000 sale price (less $700) achieved for the domain is spurious, and spiteful, imo….At most, he lost the opportunity to try to on-sell the domain…
….which, if he’d had the opportunity to do, may just as easily have fetched the $1100, as the $151,000…..There is no contractual connection whatever between Person A, and anyone that benefited from the sale of the domain for $151,000.
Person A is only entitled to the $400 further enrichment by ‘Seller’ from selling the domain for $1100, in breach of the ($700) contract between Person A, and the ‘Seller’
This is one for all the good guys! For all the guys that made deals with jerks like this……this guy is getting what he deserves. I hope they nail him because he did a very dishonorable thing. Also fairly common!! Unfortunately.
Secondly, listening to some of the ignorant comments about this means many in this industry better get some basic business training and what constitutes a contract. Amazingly ignorant!!
As for the damages…..that is entirely a different and separate matter. I think there can be compelling arguments on each side of this. The guy already admitted most of what you have to prove before you even begin. The fact that he is 20 does not factor in either way. I feel sorry that he is a moron….but he is still a moron. I don’t feel sorry for folks that play this game. Lesson learned for him and everyone reading about it. Glad he was exposed! Hope all the rest that do this are as well.
@Chris -
That’s all very cogent and logical. Unfortunately, juries are not. This guy better hope he can get an attorney to settle the matter for him before it goes to a jury trial (which it likely never will). He needs to get an attorney muy pronto!
Logan.
The worst thing this guy could of done is to post his story… He solidifies he had a digital contract with the first buyer. This case will make it clear to others, if you make a deal, the deal is done.
If you set a price, stick with it… I like the I am only 20 line. So that means at 20 you can’t do the right thing ethically?
“Unfortunately, juries are not.”
The permissibility of this speculative damage claim wouldn’t get to a jury.
Chris’ analysis is spot-on. There are no disputed issues of fact in this case to put to a jury, and the 150K damage claim would be junked on motions.
…of course the TRAFFIC Auction Exception to performing on a $1.4M “as is” sale is a well known legal principle, I suppose…
There’s a lot of quality, thoughtful comments being thrown around today.
@Bruce
Being 20 was never his defense and to be honest I do not know why this article conveys it as it was. In his original post, he isn’t squeeling and telling everyone how this is so unfair because he is 20 and has no money. He was asking people, in Berryhill’s subforum, what their recommendations were for him. He stated that he was 20 years old with no legal and travel experience and that he hardly had money in response to people telling him that he needs to get a lawyer from a(n expensive) firm like Lewis and Hand.
Listen, at this point I’m pretty sure even Snyder would admit that what he did was not good business practice. All he did was make the mistake of saying “yes” and for that simple and premature slip-up, you’re trying to crucify him. Do you guys think the kid meant to do this to Fraser, meant to offer a domain for $700 just to dangle it in his face when it would be resold for $151,000? Hell no, he would have never sold the damn thing. The guy is pretty smart for having the precense of mind to register the domain in the first place, and according to a post I saw on another forum about this, CamRoulette.com was his first ever domain sale – he isn’t exactly in the “domain game.” If I sell my car on Craigslist, I’m not exactly a car salesman.
I think Snyder has probably learned an awful lot during this process. The comments here are pretty mixed, apparently contract law isn’t even clear enough for experienced domainers to be able to hold a concrete opinion on. I just don’t see it being ethical or warranted to go after this kid for a 6-figure value in this situation, he’s going to have to file for bankruptcy and the next 7-10 years of his life could be very difficult just because he said yes in an email (allegedly).
Filing bankruptcy to dodge paying the judgment would also be an unethical thing to do. The guy is young — he can readily work and pay off over time any judgment the judge would file against him. He can do this voluntarily by working with the judgment holder or he can do it involuntarily by forcing the judgment holder to use wage garnishment to get paid out over time.
Edit: Well, not ANY judgment the judge would file against him, but even a $150K judgment he could pay off over many years — people do it all the time. It sucks, but it’s feasible.
“…of course the TRAFFIC Auction Exception to performing on a $1.4M “as is” sale is a well known legal principle, I suppose…”
You mean Ad.com right ? Glad someone brought that up.
I think Snyder will not suffer much. The contract law is one thing, the emails and the legal significance and enforements are another. Snyder’s honesty is in question. However,he just needs to learn how to defend himself. I agree with Tom and others that asking for help was the step in the right direction. I do not think this blog provides him the support needed. Most of the comments in this blog, including the comments of the legal experts do not make much sense to me. I am not a lawyer, but the possibility of the defence focusing on the “Unjust Enrichment” instantly come to my mind. It could be as simple as that. The suing party is seking to unjustly enrich itself. Consider the amount of the first bid and the second at the time of the transaction. The domain was worth to Snyder what he sold it for and it was worth to the buyer what he paid andwas refunded for, and not this buyer’s future gain from the domain flipping opportunity: the sale transation was not completed, the payment was fully refunded. Anything else is irrelevant. Any domain can be made priceless by this or next domain current buyer with the right capital, and it can create huge liability. Snyder should also consider the fact that domains are the “intangible assets” and that the learning about the legal implications of this kind of asset transfers are not regulated properly, and that the domain industry is not regulated properly itself. He probably knows very well that domain industry is not regulated and that many domain registrars and the aftermarket domain resellers are not regulated, and do many shady deals of the similar or even thee same kind. This does not excuse him of course. Snyder needs to keep researching his solution options until the answers are found. The party suing him is an opportunistic and predatory one. will be that of learning time, and he may become a more honest and a better person by learning from his experience.
I can’t believe you’re calling him unethical. He doesn’t even have the finances to travel to New York and find an attorney who can help defend him. How ethical is it to pick on someone like that?
It’s not unethical that he would file for bankruptcy. Right now, that’s looking like the only way he can defend himself here. The case will probably default, like someone said earlier. If he had the cash to get his own attorney, he’d probably be looking at $500-$700 in losses, not $150k. Is any judge really going to have someone work beneath a millionaire for 10 years for saying something in an email?
While regulation would increase “legal” behaviors and decrease “illegal” behaviors, it would not rid the free market of buyers’ and sellers’ unethical or immoral behaviors. The exact same outcome could have occurred if the domain name aftermarket were “regulated”. Please don’t call for more regulation — it only gives politicians and bureaucrats more power, which only adds corruption and other market inefficiencies into the mix. Just let buyers and sellers sort it out, which is what we are playing audience to right now.
The unethical nature of his decision depends on his intent. It would be unethical to file bankruptcy with the intent to avoid paying the judgment. Look, the guy will not stay 20 years old forever — he will age just like the rest of us and must pay off debts and other liabilities just like the rest of us. Why do you feel he is so special and deserving of exceptions to the same rules that the rest of us live by? He’s not a kid — he’s a LEGAL ADULT.
“Is any judge really going to have someone work beneath a millionaire for 10 years for saying something in an email?”
Why not? What does the wealth of the plaintiff have to do with the judge’s decision in the matter? How does the plaintiff’s wealth make him less deserving of a legal remedy than a non-millionaire would be? Or are you a believer in class warfare?
Clearly, this can’t be handled by buyers and sellers. When someone throws a demand of $150,300 at someone over a domain that he valued at $700, how can we expect it to be handled? This is insane to me, the plaintiff suffered no real damages. Stop your crying and continue on with your miserable ChatRoulette ripoff for God’s sake, and if the demand was reasonable (to me, reasonable would be anything up to $1200) then I wouldn’t feel the need to say that. I’ll bet Snyder is terribly sorry that he didn’t shovel you a great domain at your lowball offer just so you could either a.) completely copy someone else’s idea and attempt to profit off of it or b.) make your disgusting porn site.
I don’t mean to make this personal, but really?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/diamonds-are-fraser-browns-best-friend-13963988.html
I think I’ll keep any further comments to myself because the more I look into this whole thing, the more livid I become. I don’t want to look like a “George Kirikos” here.
Logan, the argument is that his remedy should be nothing close to $150,300. If you think I am saying Snyder is a baby-faced young boy who is exempt from all punishment, then no. As I said before, Snyder should be paying $500-$700.
Logan,
I tried to bring some light to improve the understanding of the situation which I meant to finish with the sentence “Snyder’s expense will be that of learning time, and he may become a more honest and a better person by learning from his experience.” I do not see any great difficulty for him to defend himself. He should learn himself rather than hire any lawyer. Most of the lawyers cannot learn in few hours what a “domain name” is and why paying them for making irrelevant turns on the path to the settlement, and make the money out of confusion. This is what usually happens. The onus in this case is on the challenging party to prove among other things that the subsequent events after their failed attempt to buy the name has any relevancy to the case, etc, …. etc.
>ahh,,, /Drew… I think some others had a hand in quashing the “parallel registry” thing too… ahem
I stand corrected, Toonz. You know what my memory is like.
JB…..I guess if you can’t win in a court of law you have to blame me. lol
Those involved could have done a real “solid” for the industry by going after AOL. You chose circular firing squad instead.
This story points to other issues when it comes to educating young people about business, ethics and finance. Our public school systems need to focus more on personal finance and basic business skills, such as executing and honoring a contract.
Not to make excuses for the seller as ignorance is not a defense, but on some level this kid was failed at some point. I hope he ends up a brilliant domainer and businessman but this lesson is going to hurt. It may end up being the most valuable education he gets in the long run.
Also, the seller mentioned he was domaining since he was seventeen. I am not a biz law expert so I will ask a stupid question; Since 18 is the legal age for entering a contract in most states, is seventeen a legally binding age for entering a sales contract over the internet? Which state takes jurisdiction if the contract age in one state happens to be different from another?
I know it does not apply to to the story but it is something to consider as I imagine more young people entering the domain investment space considering the low cost of entry.
I had additional thought about this case: I can understand that Snyder’s personal integrity and knowledge has been in question, but there is no excuse for the “sophisticated” buyer to make unfounded statement of claim: the buyer has advisors including legal advisors and financial ability and yet proceeded with this case. Shame on them!
“You chose circular firing squad instead.”
I’m trying to connect this with some sort of reality. I do not choose what people decide to do, and the case is moving forward. So your comment about not winning a case in which I am not representing either side is equally mysterious.
The subject of discussion here is breach of contract. I don’t recall you being a party to either side of that contract, so the “blame me” comment also makes about zero sense. AOL also was not a party to any contract. You see, in a breach of contract action, two folks who were party to a contract are the folks who go to court.
The situation under discussion is pretty simple:
Did the seller breach a contract? Most likely.
Is he liable for 150K damages? Most likely not.
My tangential observation was simply about the consistency with which these so-called ethics of performing contracts is applied.
JB,
Why “Most likely not.”?
Definitely not!
“JB,
Why “Most likely not.”?”
Because the difference between an intelligent person and a blowhard is that one of them is certain.
I can’t conceive of a theory under which the plaintiff gets a $150K recovery on the facts alleged. I am not omniscient.
And that is the perpetual handicap that people with expertise have relative to cocksure idiots. Some people think the guy who pounds the table hardest and yells the loudest must be right because he is so sure of himself. Most of the time, that guy is an idiot.
George Kirikos seems to delight in exposing other people’s problems. Get a life George.
JB,
RE: “I can’t conceive of a theory under which the plaintiff gets a $150K recovery on the facts alleged.”
Thanks for the note. Wouldn’t it would be more constructive to say what theory you conceive about the plaintif’s unfounded and unjust claim? The “recovery” is not the right term to use: the plaintif’s claim is invalid, there was no loss of 150K. How can anyone prove that there was loss? Is it possible to travel back in time today? Am I missing something?
RL: Click on “Older Comments” (directly above Trackbacks & Pingbacks) and you’ll see other theories (including one from Paul Keating, another attorney).
GK,
Thanks, I have seen this: “I can’t believe some attorney charged him $500 for a consultation without at least telling him there is NO WAY he is going to be on the hook for the measure of damages being sought here.” and I also have seen this “Most likely not.”
It would be interesting to see the charges reversed: The plaintif ‘s claim does not make any sense, and JB, among others clearly stated this. The plaintif has the burden of proof. It appears that the plaintif is in trouble, and not the defendant. Am I still missing something?