Bull

NewWorldArk · 03-29-2008, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Charley

This is the problem. I never read them, just agree, sign and send the names.

In most if not all Cases Lawyers are the ones writing up these contracts, if you take a quick glance at a contract and feel you need to hire a lawyer just to understand your rights in that particular contract then I would hold off doing any business with that particular company.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/domain-name-discussion/449617-moniker-auction-terms-outrageous.html

Unfortunately, most if not all Contracts Read this way.

Lawyer to Lawyer.

Long and Drawn out.

Charley · 03-29-2008, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by PowerUp

I read somewhere that if the Agreement is one sided, or unfair to one party, then the court would consider the Agreement to be void/unenforceable. Can someone confirm this?

Moniker has been using this same contract for many years and haven't any problems. I think nobody is going to take them to court.

***mwzd*** · 03-29-2008, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by hawkeye

They really didn't/don't expect people to actually read that contract. They just want domainers to be excited to have their names be accepted for auction, and not read what they are signing.

I did actually, thats why have referred it to a lawyer. Don't have enough legal experience otherwise.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=449617

I do think the 60 days after auction is a good clause to prevent dealing on the side. Unless i missed something. Also, you can always terminate the agreement in writing, I assume fax/regd. post would work for that.

Though this is probably why they're asking people to fax/mail in the agreement instead of an online approval as usual.

Charley · 03-29-2008, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by mwzd

I do think the 60 days after auction is a good clause to prevent dealing on the side.

You mean if the domain name doesn't result in a sale.

pixelpadre · 03-29-2008, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by zoki

I gave that contract to lawyer and he translated and checked it for me,
its not perfect but acceptable.
(but i'm not sure is it still same, mine was year ago)

I dont see why this one is in red:

So if there are any expenses they are going to ask you ! Whats bad about that ?

-

Presumably......they are making a da*n good commission that has expenses built in to it. Thats why they get a commission.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=449617

Would be really nice if I could say to my home seller "you have to pay me 6% commission plus all costs that I incur in selling you house." What a fairy tale that would make.

domainacrobat · 03-29-2008, 01:20 PM

I must admit I was impressed by the length of the contract in a bad way. But You have every right to cancel the contract as long as you do so in writing by a certain time. I dont see what the problem is.

I want to get my names in front of the folks who actually have a budget and can pay what my names are worth. If it takes Moniker then thats what it takes, no one is forcing you to sell through tem.

BLazeD · 03-29-2008, 02:12 PM

It's why I've never used them

leadology · 03-29-2008, 02:47 PM

Moniker is just plain scary to me. Have you ever talked with them on the phone? That's a real eye opener.

I just can't see using their services.

My 2 cents:-)

NameCharger · 03-29-2008, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by acc

That is NOT a domainer-friendly clause.

I didn't see any of it that is domainer-friendly.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=449617

As a Realtor, I don't contractually tie my Sellers up nearly that tight when I sell the roofs over their heads!

To protect myself against a Seller circumventing a sale, I incorporate a clause in my listing contracts that entitles me to a commission should the property be sold within 90 days after expiration to person/s who viewed the property during my listing period. If I want this clause to be put into effect, I must provide this list of prospects to my Seller via Certified Mail within 5 days after expiration.

In my opinion, entitling a broker to compensation 2 years after a contract expires is absolutely ridiculous.

Irieman · 03-29-2008, 03:51 PM

I find that contract outrageous! I planned on listing names with them...

oldtimer · 03-29-2008, 04:06 PM

There is something inherently wrong when a contract is so one sided. Even when an attorney is representing the interest of a certain company he or she is still an officer of the court and as such has taken an oath to abide by and uphold the spirit of the law by not participating in or facilitating the means for anyone to engage in unjust, unethical, or predatory practices and that also includes their own client. When drawing up contracts attorneys have an obligation to all sides to make sure that everything is on the level and that no one is being intentionally harmed or taken advantage of whether it is the company that they are representing or you as a customer. Think of how many services we use in our everyday life that requires us to sign something, whether it is renting a car or leasing an apartment or making a purchase, in most cases we depend on the contract to be fair and just to all sides and not to intentionally cheat us out of something.

Pound · 03-29-2008, 05:54 PM

Now I regret putting names in my application that I was hoping to get in, rather than expected. I will be a lot more detailed for the next auction, that's for sure.

VirtualT · 03-29-2008, 06:53 PM

Monte should be ashamed of himself,
respect rapidly decreasing

copper · 03-29-2008, 08:33 PM

It's as simple as...
Don't use them if you don't like them.
All these fuss won't change anything.
It's just waste of time, imho.

VirtualT · 03-29-2008, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by copper

All these fuss won't change anything.
It's just waste of time, imho.

Thats very defeatist of you, if no one ever says anything unethical practices such as this will continue in the industry.
Be a sheep if you want, I'm not.

-REECE- · 03-30-2008, 02:34 AM

I don't personally care if someone is the best thing since sliced bread... This contract is written to screw domainers. We work hard for our money --I'm not saying Moniker doesn't, but I always thought contracts were meant to prevent circumvention (example provided below by Namecharger), not to screw hard working people over...
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=449617

Moniker has a new owner. This is not a good way to earn our respect. The company might have the same name but this is not the Moniker I remember.

Originally Posted by NameCharger

I didn't see any of it that is domainer-friendly.

As a Realtor, I don't contractually tie my Sellers up nearly that tight when I sell the roofs over their heads!

To protect myself against a Seller circumventing a sale, I incorporate a clause in my listing contracts that entitles me to a commission should the property be sold within 90 days after expiration to person/s who viewed the property during my listing period. If I want this clause to be put into effect, I must provide this list of prospects to my Seller via Certified Mail within 5 days after expiration.

In my opinion, entitling a broker to compensation 2 years after a contract expires is absolutely ridiculous.

*verbster* · 03-30-2008, 03:17 AM

Quote:

I think you should keep the comments to yourself.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=449617

He is a successful entrepreneur and I support him.

Forums are by definition a place specifically for comments of all persuasions. Asking someone to withhold comments because you may not agree with them, and while you express yours, is a bit narrow.

Many successful entrepreneurs are good people, many aren't so good. Success doesn't necessarily define character.

The real issue seems to be some auction contract terms deemed unfair or unreasonable, mainly because they bear little relation to the auction.

Is it fair of Moniker or any domain auction sponsor to retain two months (let alone, two years) of financial control over domains that didn't sell in the auction? In a word, no. Moniker is being paid a commission for the service of listing and selling 3rd party domains in their auctions. Should the domains not sell, that service is complete. To hold the domains hostage for two more months of financial exclusivity is not only unfair, it's unjust. I'm willing to pay a percentage of my sales profits for Moniker's auction expertise, but I'm not willing to give up two months (or more) of my rights as a domain owner simply because they want an extended period of time to cash in on my unsuccessfully auctioned domains.

Why not a five day pre-auction and a 10 day period post-auction to protect against private sales to circumvent paying moniker's fees...auction sales should be wrapped up by then, anyway...but more than that is just trying to get a free bite of the pie.

oldtimer · 03-30-2008, 03:43 AM

Their predatory and unethical practices are not limited to this contract alone, once they get you hooked they won’t even answer your emails. They usually ignore emails when you inquire to see if any of your names have been selected to be included in the auction, but they still want to keep control over all your domains indefinitely even though they keep you in the dark about their processes. This contract in its present form can be easily challenged in any competent court of law, and unless it is changed immediately it will create more and more unhappy domainers.

-REECE- · 03-30-2008, 04:30 AM

Quite honestly, with the 2 year "ransom" they have in place it would almost be in their best interest not to sell the domain. Chances are good that many of the domains will be worth more in a couple years, making them even more cash (at no expense to them) if someone decides to sell after say, 18 months.

Originally Posted by oldtimer

Their predatory and unethical practices are not limited to this contract alone, once they get you hooked they won’t even answer your emails. They usually ignore emails when you inquire to see if any of your names have been selected to be included in the auction, but they still want to keep control over all your domains indefinitely even though they keep you in the dark about their processes. This contract in its present form can be easily challenged in any competent court of law, and unless it is changed immediately it will create more and more unhappy domainers.

pixelpadre · 03-30-2008, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by copper

It's as simple as...
Don't use them if you don't like them.
All these fuss won't change anything.
It's just waste of time, imho.

If you dont think that they are reconsidering their contract after reading this trhead then you are very nieve.

nstalk · 03-30-2008, 07:55 AM

I wonder if the big wealthy domain owners have to sign the same contract to list their names for sale.....if they don't then Moniker would be guilty of discrimination imho.

dag · 03-30-2008, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Reece

Quite honestly, with the 2 year "ransom" they have in place it would almost be in their best interest not to sell the domain. Chances are good that many of the domains will be worth more in a couple years, making them even more cash (at no expense to them) if someone decides to sell after say, 18 months.

Well, to be honest, it's only 2 years of not selling to buyers that they hooked you up with in the first place. You can sell it to anyone else you want...

copper · 03-30-2008, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by VirtualT

Thats very defeatist of you, if no one ever says anything unethical practices such as this will continue in the industry.

I agree their TOS is beyond ridiculous, but...
Why stop with Moniker?
How about Google?
Did you read Adsense TOS?
They can do what ever they want with your acct.
Don't tell me no one is complaining about Adsense TOS.
So, did complaining changed anything?

Quote:

Be a sheep if you want, I'm not.

Be a sheep? That's first.

I graduated from "School of Hard Knocks" with "survival" degree

So, please don't call me sheep just because I see things differently.

If it's just Monte, it may work.
I can say from my own experience that Monte
usually listen to other domainers.

It's not same any more.
It's about corporate lawyer.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=449617
It's about oversee.net

I would love to see some terms change such as removing
2 years thing and automatic extension if you don't cancel.

But, they won't change a thing unless they see big auction
revenue drop. I doubt it will happen.

I rather put my domains on other auctions than trying to
change terms on moniker auction.

I would love to be proven wrong by Moniker changing terms

This thread accomplished one thing, though.
Let domainers realize what they are signing up for.

Perhaps that's more than enough befenit from this thread since
many of us are guilty of signing things without understanding
what it is especially when it's written in smaller fonts.

Originally Posted by pixelpadre

If you dont think that they are reconsidering their contract after reading this trhead then you are very nieve.

As I said, I would love to be proven wrong by Moniker changing terms

**Dave Zan** · 03-30-2008, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by htmlindex

This agreement is a very one sided agreement favouring Moniker IMO

Service provider agreements are generally one-sided. Good for the end user if,
say, yours is generally sided towards them, I guess.

Originally Posted by PowerUp

I read somewhere that if the Agreement is one sided, or unfair to one party, then the court would consider the Agreement to be void/unenforceable. Can someone confirm this?

It's case to case. Some are upheld while others aren't, but it's your burden to
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=449617
demonstrate that if you're the one forcing the issue.

Originally Posted by domainacrobat

no one is forcing you to sell through tem.

Nailed it.

The contract may be troubling for some of you. But don't forget you do have
other choices out there, albeit they may not be as "good" as Moniker.

DomainBELL · 03-30-2008, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Rick Latona

I don't list names on my site. I sell them via my newsletter. You have to sign up for it.

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=449617
?? are you selling domains for other owners as well ??
is that what he's talking about ??
or do you only market ones you personally own ??

~DomainBELL (Patricia)

03-29-2008, 01:20 PM	#56 (permalink)
domainacrobat Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A-Team Fool! Posts: 3,708	I must admit I was impressed by the length of the contract in a bad way. But You have every right to cancel the contract as long as you do so in writing by a certain time. I dont see what the problem is. I want to get my names in front of the folks who actually have a budget and can pay what my names are worth. If it takes Moniker then thats what it takes, no one is forcing you to sell through tem. __________________ SMILE!

03-29-2008, 02:47 PM	#58 (permalink)
leadology NamePros Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Daytona Beach Posts: 94	Moniker is just plain scary to me. Have you ever talked with them on the phone? That's a real eye opener. I just can't see using their services. My 2 cents:-) __________________ Smooth seas have never made a skilled Captain

03-29-2008, 03:51 PM	#60 (permalink)
Irieman Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,025	I find that contract outrageous! I planned on listing names with them... __________________ LatestDrops.com (Beta) - Free search engine for expired, pre-release and pending delete domain names Last edited by Irieman; 07-26-2008 at 12:22 AM.

03-29-2008, 08:33 PM	#64 (permalink)
copper Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,212	It's as simple as... Don't use them if you don't like them. All these fuss won't change anything. It's just waste of time, imho. __________________ 30 Wordpress How-To Videos! - 50% off Limited Time Offer

03-29-2008, 02:12 PM	#57 (permalink)
BLazeD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,678	It's why I've never used them

03-29-2008, 04:06 PM	#61 (permalink)
oldtimer NamePros Regular Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: USA Posts: 626	There is something inherently wrong when a contract is so one sided. Even when an attorney is representing the interest of a certain company he or she is still an officer of the court and as such has taken an oath to abide by and uphold the spirit of the law by not participating in or facilitating the means for anyone to engage in unjust, unethical, or predatory practices and that also includes their own client. When drawing up contracts attorneys have an obligation to all sides to make sure that everything is on the level and that no one is being intentionally harmed or taken advantage of whether it is the company that they are representing or you as a customer. Think of how many services we use in our everyday life that requires us to sign something, whether it is renting a car or leasing an apartment or making a purchase, in most cases we depend on the contract to be fair and just to all sides and not to intentionally cheat us out of something.

03-29-2008, 05:54 PM	#62 (permalink)
Pound Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: UK Posts: 2,065	Now I regret putting names in my application that I was hoping to get in, rather than expected. I will be a lot more detailed for the next auction, that's for sure.

03-29-2008, 06:53 PM	#63 (permalink)
VirtualT Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: afloat.com Posts: 1,112	Monte should be ashamed of himself, respect rapidly decreasing

03-30-2008, 03:43 AM	#68 (permalink)
oldtimer NamePros Regular Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: USA Posts: 626	Their predatory and unethical practices are not limited to this contract alone, once they get you hooked they won’t even answer your emails. They usually ignore emails when you inquire to see if any of your names have been selected to be included in the auction, but they still want to keep control over all your domains indefinitely even though they keep you in the dark about their processes. This contract in its present form can be easily challenged in any competent court of law, and unless it is changed immediately it will create more and more unhappy domainers.

03-30-2008, 07:55 AM	#71 (permalink)
nstalk NamePros Regular Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 386	I wonder if the big wealthy domain owners have to sign the same contract to list their names for sale.....if they don't then Moniker would be guilty of discrimination imho.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)