Dynadot

I bought DomainNames.com from NetworkSolutions, but they took it back.

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch
Hi, guys

I'm the buyer of DomainNames.com, I did the search via NetworkSolutions.com on 12.Feb, and found it's in their premium domain name lists with a very bargin price $2,577 (yes, it's a big bargain but a deal is a deal). Then I ordered it and paid via credit card.

This domain name is under control of New Ventures Services Corp and everyone knows it is NetworkSolutions/Web.com's warehousing company. All their domain names will be listed as premium domain names for sale on NetworkSolutions.com.

Once I made my order, Netsol sent me a order confirmation email. After 3 days, Networksolutions pushed the domain name into my Netsol account with a confirmation email to notify that my order has been completed, and I have the full control on it. I changed the DNS to my own hosting account.

But NetSol has removed it from my account today without any notifications nor explaination.

I will update further later.
 
42
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
What we needed here was someone like Rick Schwartz paying $2,577 for the name and then having it removed from his account with no communication The TOS would still hold but he would have made them wish they left him keep the name and maybe throw some foolish cash at making their lives miserable.
 
10
•••
What we needed here was someone like Rick Schwartz paying $2,577 for the name and then having it removed from his account with no communication The TOS would still hold but he would have made them wish they left him keep the name and maybe throw some foolish cash at making their lives miserable.
They are a bit more rigid, not as consumer friendly like Godaddy, most likely he would just be welcome by the corporate wall, anyone that holds their domains there has already lost their mind, so saying bad things about them won't change much.

Another notch on the belt, even if you got that auth code in time, then you would have to wait for the transfer hold, if you got into the weekend you might have beat them out, somehow someone figured it out.
 
0
•••
They are a bit more rigid, not as consumer friendly like Godaddy, most likely he would just be welcome by the corporate wall, anyone that holds their domains there has already lost their mind, so saying bad things about them won't change much.

Another notch on the belt, even if you got that auth code in time, then you would have to wait for the transfer hold, if you got into the weekend you might have beat them out, somehow someone figured it out.

Or if it got out Net Sol might have gone to Verisign and demanded they moved it back.
 
0
•••
They should have honoured it whilst publicly ridiculing themselves for putting in too low of a price. Firstly this would have gained them respect as people who stand by their word. Secondly people would most likely laugh with them thus increasing their public image. Thirdly people would be more likely to use them hunting through for 'bargains'. Instead they prove they are *still* inept and soulless. I don't understand why people even still use them. They are overpriced and are notorious for being at the end of controversies, thefts, and shady dealings.
 
7
•••
No unfortunately the TOS is not irrelevant. Domainer testimony would be more damaging if anything else on cross examination, as people when they first heard about the name being bought thought it was a high five to six figure sale.
I have wrote this a few hours ago - The tos can't be above the law. In other words-the tos is an attempt of the business operator to minimize any if not all liabilities.Therefor it is sometimes in some clauses a wishlist of the business operator and has no legal weight. For instance - you can not break a contract without informing the other party about it in a proper way. Of course you can put such procedure in a tos but I doubt that in court this will withstand against business law.
In case of fraudulent business practices business operators could face even criminal charges. Testimonies from the past could show that this is somekind of standard business behavior of the party involved where the superior business operator is trying to take advantage over the weaker contract party.
 
0
•••
New Ventures Services employee: Hey boss, let's price a lot of domain names with these prices, then if we see people congratulating the buyers or if they turn out to be a large corporation that could have afforded 6 figures, we just use the TOS to take them back.

Boss: It's almost too perfect, I see a promotion in your future.

And this plan makes money how?

There seems to be some disagreement on which set of Netsol terms applies. Both of them have this:

Web.com’s aggregate liability shall not exceed the total amount paid by you for the Services, but in no event shall it be greater than five hundred dollars ($500.00), and you acknowledge and agree that this will be your exclusive remedy under this Agreement and otherwise in relation to your use of the Services. You agree that Web.com’s entire liability, in law, equity or otherwise, with respect to any Services provided under this Agreement and/or for any breach of this Agreement, is solely limited to the amount you paid for such Services during the term of this Agreement, except as otherwise limited herein. Because some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, in such states Web.com’s liability is limited to the maximum extent permitted by law.

So, are we playing for the $500 in this lawsuit, or the full $2577?

Or do we decide that part of the contract doesn't apply, and the court will agree if we ask nicely?

Is it allowed (as per Florida laws) for Starbucks employee to forcefully take the remaining coffee away from my cup, as I am technically reachable (sitting in the same Starbucks). How would this situation be different (from the legal point of view)?

That's a good question worth an answer, because whenever one of these things comes up, people will chime in with general ideas about contract law, etc..

Here's the thing - people buy stuff from merchants every day, and nobody signs a contract to buy a cup of coffee from Starbucks. The way this works in the US is that every state has more or less adopted a body of law called the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC is a set of rules that are based on a distillation of old common law contract principles, and what it does is to say "If you buy or sell something without a written contract - then these rules are the contract."

In other words, in the ordinary course of trade, in the State of Florida THIS is the "TOS" which applies to you walking into Starbucks and buying a cup of coffee:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ml&StatuteYear=2017&Title=->2017->Chapter 672

Now, that applies to the sale of goods. Whether domain name registrations are "goods" is a fun topic to kick around. Suffice it to say, I don't see anyone paying Florida sales tax on these "goods", so there would be consequences if domain name registrations were considered "goods".

If, however, you walk into Starbucks, ask for a cup of coffee and they say, "Okay, please sign this contract for the sale of your cup of coffee" then that contract, not the default terms of the UCC, control that transaction.

On the "what would happen if a domainer did this" I did, in fact, handle a case a few years ago in which there was some sort of technical error on the Sedo website, which resulted in my client's domain names being priced wrong, and on which the sale was voided on the ground of unilateral mistake. So, yes, it happens.
 
7
•••
I have wrote this a few hours ago - The tos can't be above the law. In other words-the tos is an attempt of the business operator to minimize any if not all liabilities.Therefor it is sometimes in some clauses a wishlist of the business operator and has no legal weight. For instance - you can not break a contract without informing the other party about it in a proper way. Of course you can put such procedure in a tos but I doubt that in court this will withstand against business law.
In case of fraudulent business practices business operators could face even criminal charges. Testimonies from the past could show that this is somekind of standard business behavior of the party involved where the superior business operator is trying to take advantage over the weaker contract party.

No you are wrong, the TOS is set when you open an account. You can prevent yourself against loss due to pricing errors. @jberryhill can weigh in.
 
0
•••
And this plan makes money how?

There seems to be some disagreement on which set of Netsol terms applies. Both of them have this:

Web.com’s aggregate liability shall not exceed the total amount paid by you for the Services, but in no event shall it be greater than five hundred dollars ($500.00), and you acknowledge and agree that this will be your exclusive remedy under this Agreement and otherwise in relation to your use of the Services. You agree that Web.com’s entire liability, in law, equity or otherwise, with respect to any Services provided under this Agreement and/or for any breach of this Agreement, is solely limited to the amount you paid for such Services during the term of this Agreement, except as otherwise limited herein. Because some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, in such states Web.com’s liability is limited to the maximum extent permitted by law.

So, are we playing for the $500 in this lawsuit, or the full $2577?

Or do we decide that part of the contract doesn't apply, and the court will agree if we ask nicely?



That's a good question worth an answer, because whenever one of these things comes up, people will chime in with general ideas about contract law, etc..

Here's the thing - people buy stuff from merchants every day, and nobody signs a contract to buy a cup of coffee from Starbucks. The way this works in the US is that every state has more or less adopted a body of law called the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC is a set of rules that are based on a distillation of old common law contract principles, and what it does is to say "If you buy or sell something without a written contract - then these rules are the contract."

In other words, in the ordinary course of trade, in the State of Florida THIS is the "TOS" which applies to you walking into Starbucks and buying a cup of coffee:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0600-0699/0672/0672ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2017&Title=->2017->Chapter 672

Now, that applies to the sale of goods. Whether domain name registrations are "goods" is a fun topic to kick around. Suffice it to say, I don't see anyone paying Florida sales tax on these "goods", so there would be consequences if domain name registrations were considered "goods".

If, however, you walk into Starbucks, ask for a cup of coffee and they say, "Okay, please sign this contract for the sale of your cup of coffee" then that contract, not the default terms of the UCC, control that transaction.

On the "what would happen if a domainer did this" I did, in fact, handle a case a few years ago in which there was some sort of technical error on the Sedo website, which resulted in my client's domain names being priced wrong, and on which the sale was voided on the ground of unilateral mistake. So, yes, it happens.

That was kinda poking fun John, although I could say if you sell a bunch of names not at the quality of DomainNames.com you might let the sales go where you don't see any praise or find out a Fortune 500 purchased. But as I said it was in jest for the most part.
 
0
•••
0
•••
who would sell domainnames.com for $2500 anyway? let get realistic - clearly must be an error. Domainers push the upper hand on every situation and error that occurs.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Thank you!
Never know that. I actually haven't used Netsol for many years.
I wouldn't want my money back. I want what the domain name I legally purchased. Fight tooth and nail for this transaction because you used the system that they have set up for their website. That makes them responsible for any errors. That's why companies carry liability insurance. Don't let it go. Keep exposing them until they resolve this matter in your favor. Your emails and time-lined evidence clearly shows that the ownership was turned over to you. They cant just randomly come and hijack your domain name. Make sure you safeguard your email account because it has your only overwhelming proof if you choose to settle this in a law suit. (y)
 
1
•••
who would sell domainnames.com for $2500 anyway? clearly must be an error. Domainers push the upper hand on every situation and error that occurs.
exactly - at $2,500 it seems heavy overpriced to me :xf.wink:
 
2
•••
How do you define overpriced or underpriced in the world of domains? We all try to pay the lowest possible price for domains we purchase and we try to gain the highest possible price for domains we sell. We've all searched lists in the hope of finding a bargain. In the same way I'm sure buyers have scoured our domains looking for something that's underpriced. That's the nature of domain trading. As someone else said earlier are they going to refund anyone who has overpaid in the past. And they'll be plenty of buyers who have been stung big time paying for 'overpriced' domains. So they should do the decent thing and put the domain back in the buyer's account - it should never have been removed.
 
2
•••
So now Network Solutions has created this precedent - after a domain was sold, paid for, and transferred they removed it from the owner's account.

Are they going to extend these same rights to other people who have a pricing "error" on their platform, or are these rights exclusively for them to use?

I am sick of these companies using an obviously biased TOS as some shield to give themselves above the law status for their actions.

Network Solutions was a shit company before this. This is just icing on the cake.

Brad
 
11
•••
Were you really surprised this happened? It was worth a shot.
 
0
•••
0
•••
There is a new complaint about this registrar every few days. Not sure why anyone is still there. This particular incident is not shocking and shows how many of these registars are in direct competition with their customer base.

It might be legal but it makes them look untrustworthy and not someone you should do business with ever. Go to a different registrar guys. One that isn’t as ethically challenged.
 
1
•••
There is a new complaint about this registrar every few days. Not sure why anyone is still there. This particular incident is not shocking and shows how many of these registars are in direct competition with their customer base.

It might be legal but it makes them look untrustworthy and not someone you should do business with ever. Go to a different registrar guys. One that isn’t as ethically challenged.

I agree, I find it completely mind-boggling that domainers still use NetworkSolutions after years of bullsh*t like this.
 
2
•••
I would be minded to get that name back if I were the buyer. I have on at least 4 occasions picked up stuff in a shop to the counter where cashier finds that the label price is lower than the system price. They apologise that the price label was wrong but I still go through check out with the 'incorrect' low price (they may take time to go to the aisle to check and all that, or get their manager). ....... and they don't try to come take it off me once I have paid and left the shop!

Maybe it only works this way in the UK!

Shame we have too many domain sharks about!
 
Last edited:
0
•••
I would be minded to get that name back if I were the buyer. I have on at least 4 occasions picked up stuff in a shop to the counter where cashier finds that the label price is lower than the system price. They apologise that the price label was wrong but I still go through check out with the 'incorrect' low price (they may take time to go to the aisle to check and all that, or get their manager). ....... and they don't try to come take it off me once I have paid and left the shop!

Maybe it only works this way in the UK!

Shame we have too many domain sharks about!
Hardly comparable to getting a ten or twenty dollar item cheaper vs what is a six figure domain. I feel for the buyer but lets face it, he knew that price wasn't correct.
 
1
•••
I haven't read the entire thread, so this might already have been mentioned, but have you tried filing a chargeback? At least then you would recover the fee.
 
0
•••
This is horrible, Hope it gets resolved amicably.
 
0
•••
Hardly comparable to getting a ten or twenty dollar item cheaper vs what is a six figure domain. I feel for the buyer but lets face it, he knew that price wasn't correct.
OP stated that he didn't receive any notification about cancelling the contract. Therefor your statement about wrong pricing is pure speculation!
 
0
•••
I haven't read the entire thread, so this might already have been mentioned, but have you tried filing a chargeback? At least then you would recover the fee.
Why should he file a chargeback? He bought the item!
 
0
•••
I have wrote this a few hours ago - The tos can't be above the law.

That is true. In the UK at least, an unfair contract is invalid.

So if Netsol say, "If you do not renew your domain name with us, you give us the right to adopt your first born child", that is an unfair condition that can never be enforced.
 
2
•••
Back