Comments on: Yet Just Another Day: More Trouble In dotMobi Land

By: Not Another DotMobi Post! : Domain Bits

Not Another DotMobi Post! : Domain Bits — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:40:40 +0000

[…] world. No need for me to repeat this, you can find good coverage all over the domainersphere at Sahar’s Blog, DN Journal, Andrew’s Blog, Domain Name News, and Elliot’s […]

By: Robert Fontaine

Robert Fontaine — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:36:20 +0000

But when you put a specific start and end time on the auctions, then inform someone they are the winner, then invoice them…..

By: David Wrixon

David Wrixon — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:27:33 +0000

Sedo-Policy | Your user agreement:

5.1.2.7. Liability

Sedo in no way guarantees or further warrants that the web page on which bids can be placed (”Bidding Page”?) during the Auction Period is permanently accessible. If a Bidding Page is not accessible, the Seller may not, in the future refer to a potentially higher bid during this time period as a mechanism for not following through with a sale. Furthermore, a potential bidder may not argue, for the same purposes, that he would have been the highest bidder the Domain up for Auction if the webpage would have been available.

http://sedo.com/about/policy.php?page=terms_of_use_us&tracked=1&partnerid=33746&language=us

By: Robert Fontaine

Robert Fontaine — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:22:58 +0000

Seems to me that while all sites need disclaimers to account for matters beyond their control (network outages, database breakdowns, innocent - yet clear errors), this is especially true for an auction forum where multiple people are making bids (commitments) of significant value. If I were the winning bidder, and invoiced as such, and if I indeed wanted to go through with the purchase, I would have sent the check. Then, if the domain sold for a higher amount, either the seller or Sedo could be liable to pay the original bidder the difference between his winning bid and the higher bid. A court would likely consider rescinding the sale so the winning bid reverts back to the initial winner. In any case, SEDO should cretainly not earn a commission for the difference in price for the two winning bids. But the bigger picture/question that needs to be asked is, When is a sale final? If it only becomes final when the check is cashed, then SEDO is in no position to require winning bidders to pay up if they later decide they dont want to. The payment completes the contract. And if that’s the case, those selling domains at auction can have aunt Nancy and Buddy Tom place shill bids to drive up the price, without concern for having to honor the bids. I imagine that this case will result in one party suing in a court of law, which will require (as should be the case) that very specific and consitant rules be formulated address all terms of these auctions. When the Dallas Cowboys mistakenly over bid by a few hundred grand, that aint right. If I offer a url at auction and mistakenly offer the singular, when I own the plural, that is a problem. When I win a bid at auction and am invoiced, then someone else buys it for tens of thousands more, thats a problem. Ultimately, it’s SEDO’s (or whatever the auction company may be) responsibilty. They are earning their commissions based on the integrity of those auctions. If they screw up, they should forfeit their commissions. It is their DUTY to mantain the integrity of those auctions.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 06:32:32 +0000

What Sedo has done has gone on for too long in various forms by a number of internet domain companies.. Artificially driving up prices and using unfair tactics is wrong and their greed will be the downfall of the company.

Personally I see no need for the .mobi tld and don’t expect much of an adoption by the mainstream…. I expect the webmasters to implement better formats for their .com tlds and people will still see .com as the ultimate connected tld.

Best of luck in getting this situation resolved, regardless… what Sedo has done in this “auction” is plainly not ethical.