legal Domain Broker Suing For Commission on FF.com deal

[DaveX]

Faraday Future Hit With $210k Lawsuit Over its Domain Name

Faraday Future has been hit with a lawsuit alleging that it failed to pay a broker for acquiring FF.com on behalf of the electric automaker.

It is alleged that Faraday’s former head of corporate communications, Marcus Nelson, employed the help of Suraj Rajwani from Domains Cable to think of a name for the start-up automaker and to register an appropriate domain name.

During negotiations, Nelson said that Faraday would give Rajwani a fee on top of the domain’s purchase price.

Rajwani soon began negotiating with Bank of America to purchase the domain FF.com and put forward an offer of $150,000. Bank of America counter-offered with $2.5 million. Rajwani ultimately told Faraday that he had got the asking price down to $1.5 million.

Unbeknownst to him, the electric automaker took matters into its own hands and went directly to Bank of America to purchase the domain for $1.4 million, cutting out the middle man (Rajwani).

In the lawsuit, Rajwani asks for no less than $210,000 alongside miscellaneous costs and expenses of the suit.

Source: http://www.carscoops.com/2017/02/faraday-future-hit-with-210k-lawsuit.html

 

[idomainappraisal]

Treble the award against auto dealer it was intentional

The broker should have asked BOA for a 1 time right to sell

Another reason to not like BOA as well

Business etiquette they should have told the auto dealer they were already in a deal with them via their 'broker'

Plus the broker should have a written agreement about that specific term giving him authority to work on the project

 

[Micklepickle]

I'm interested in seeing how this lawsuit settles.

I hope this guy had a seasoned transactional lawyer, who provided an unbreakable agreement covering all angles of the client/broker arrangement. However, from reading the above posts it sounds like no agreement, only verbal and a few text messages.

Now the sh*t show begins. The broker needs to run out and find a new lawyer who specializes in litigation. Unfortunately, this is entering into the most expensive practice of law. I hope he has deep pockets, because if this company is willing to circumvent an agreement (verbal or written) and go directly to the seller and thereby spend $1.5 million on a domain name, then the broker is in for a long fight, against a company with deep pockets. A fight that the CEO will have no issues in prolonging the battle and effectively bleeding the broker dry....which in litigation can happen a lot faster than you might think.

Until all facts are known its hard to jump on any one side, but in the shadow of full disclosure, the CEO of the buyer side appears to be an unethical character in his business dealing. Too bad a deal has to end this way when basic steps could have been taken to protect the integrity of the deal.

Remember, take the necessary steps and precautions to protect yourself: trust/escrow accounts, privacy agreements, broker agreements and most importantly map out the reasonable steps when attempting to connect buyers and sellers, it's called a strategy. The tools are out there, it might take a little (or a lot) of extra work by adding a couple of additional steps, but in the end, you minimize the risk of a bad deal ultimately costing you money.

The domain industry might be relatively new, but consulting and brokering agreements/strategies are not.

I hope the CEO grows a conscience and does the right thing and settles the account in good standing.

A good example of how not to engage a business agreement. I wish the broker luck and success.

 

[mvl]

Can't really judge without knowing both sides of this story.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

assuming he has a bona fide case I wish him all the luck in the World WTG!

 

[lock]

His word against theirs. Company could have paid commission to the employee that actually closed the deal.