I'm not a big fan of Flippa either and I surely understand your desire to complete due diligence but,
All you need to know from Flippa's perspective is written above. Flippa did the required due diligence for you, you agreed to a transaction and then decided to add a term to the contract after you agreed to a sale. If you expected the seller to change the whois after you agreed to the sale, it was you who erred and thus broke the contract by not submitting payment.
Your ire should actually be directed to the domain seller, not Flippa, for not doing what they said, they would do, during your negotiations. But somewhere along the line, you agreed to a purchase using Flippa's terms of service and thus broke them by not submitting payment, so I'm sorry to say, this is on you, and perhaps the domain seller, but not Flippa! You gave them no choice but to suspend your account!
I have admitted that I was at fault:
I am definitely not a fan now, I really was.. I have bought Several domains from there since this particular sale took place... the final thing in negotiations was that I would pay after the whois was updated, as I have said... Where I screwed up is I should not have allowed it to go into the sales completion area until after the seller updated the records. It is being made to look like I have added additional terms, when in fact the terms were agreed upon before the sale but as the last step when I submitted the counter offer.. That is where I screwed up... I shouldn't have submitted the counter offer. I should have made him submit the offer back to me...
I will own it where I screwed up, I no longer have a problem with the suspension. It's valid, I violated the ToS. Not intentionally albeit, but I did none the less.
I take issue with Flippa at this point because they say one thing and do another. Their own ToS says this:
but yet, they cancelled an agreement on my behalf.
Not once did I ever say I wanted to cancel the transaction, I simply wanted the terms discussed in negotiations adhered to.
How can an entity be both not part of a transaction other than being a platform for meeting, and also be the arbitrator for a dispute which by the way I never noticed anything relating to Disputes mentioned one single time in the entire ToS. I may be wrong, and I have been before and likely will be again, But, if they reference their ToS in relation to an infraction, shouldn't the ToS at least make mention of what they are referencing? Again, I didn't see anything in the ToS, that shouldn't be thought to be me saying There isn't anything. I may have looked over it. In any case, if an agreement is "binding and irrevocable" how is it that they become a de facto arbirtrator that has the right to Revoke said agreement? Further, If they claim that they are merely providing the software and website for the buyer and seller to conduct their own auction or classifieds; how is it possible for them to switch standpoints and act as an arbitrator?
I take issue with that.
Basically I see it like this, if you say you aren't part of my agreement, or business, when it comes time that someone doesn't like how things are going (yes including myself) you shouldn't put yourself into my business. If your own policy says you aren't involved, you should stay neutral, and not involved.
An entity with a vested interest in the transaction cannot be an impartial arbitrator. They shouldn't act as one. By telling the seller that he no longer had to sell to me, and could sell to someone else, they gave him permission to break an agreement that they say is irrevocable and legally binding. It's illogical how can an entity be both a non participant and a participant at the same time? That is where my issue lies as of now.... the suspension, is justified. The company telling me that they have the right to break a legally binding and irrevocable agreement, that is too contradictory for me to understand.
