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

[owntype]

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.

 

[owntype]

@Crysis

Thank you for bringing this TOS point.
As you mentioned, that TOS version with premium domain terms is found via Google.
When I place my order, it does shows the Service Agreement under the button.
I did checked the link, and it links to http://legal.web.com/Document/Get/ServicesAgreement
And then it linked to https://assets.web.com/legal/English/MSA/v1.0.0.3/ServicesAgreement.pdf
I downloaded the original copy of the TOS
Tried to search conditions of premium domains, but found nothing in this version. I think this version is the TOS I would have to acknowledge.
And, one question, what is a price error? how to define the price error?

 

[GoWebnames.com]

Hi, no one has contacted me NOR sending any notification in Netsol system regarding their action.
No refund either.
Simply removed it from my netsol account sliently.

Ah, what crap by NetSol, the thief company.
Sorry to hear about your loss, doesn't look like they will return the domain. They will issue a refund.
Just remember for the next time not to make the mistake of eating the fruit before it's ripe. Big deals like these ought to be conducted silently and swiftly so others have no chance of spoiling the deal, knowingly or inadvertently.

 

[hookbox]

But if you were to have made the pricing mistake, received payment and pushed the domain to the buyers account - do you think a registry would let you recover the domain?

Forget about morals for a second. This industry is still the wild wild west and will always be. Do you think any of these companies care about the domaining community? Especially Netsol since the majority of their customers are normal business owners and don't even know what a domainer is. They are going to ride the storm for about a week and deal with the backlash by ignoring it and in less than ten days this thread will be on page 10 at Namepros. The buyer will get his refund and maybe be offered a decent domain from their portfolio for free to just forget about it and move on.

 

[owntype]

 

[jamesau]

If you do want to fight this you need to stop posting and discuss with a lawyer.

Otherwise you can settle for a refund and make the most of the publicity.

 

[Skyvisum]

They are my least favorite. I never register anything with them. Either I buy from someone or get transferred by Namejet.

But whatever happened with you is very unethical and so wrong.

Thanks

I am moving out my 189 domains away in batches.Lucky I contacted and got a nice female who i email and just request my authorization code and she sends me all of them . They are the worst to leave your names with.Outrageous renewal rate and they are very unethical.

 

[Michael M]

Forget about morals for a second. This industry is still the wild wild west and will always be. Do you think any of these companies care about the domaining community? Especially Netsol since the majority of their customers are normal business owners and don't even know what a domainer is. They are going to ride the storm for about a week and deal with the backlash by ignoring it and in less than ten days this thread will be on page 10 at Namepros. The buyer will get his refund and maybe be offered a decent domain from their portfolio for free to just forget about it and move on.

No doubt that is a probable outcome - but morals and right and wrong do matter. The minute people stop thinking it matters is when we move one more notch down the belt in the wrong direction.

Bringing attention to matters such as this, and calling them for what they are, does serve a function. (even if the end result isn't the desired outcome)

 

[hookbox]

No doubt that is a probable outcome - but morals and right and wrong do matter. The minute people stop thinking it matters is when we move one more notch down the belt in the wrong direction.

Bringing attention to matters such as this, and calling them for what they are, does serve a function. (even if the end result isn't the desired outcome)

I agree.

 

[Ollie3000]

If you haven't yet received a refund, then isn't it theft? Also the whois record was changed to the OP which means the name is his.

Can they legally change the whois details back to their own?

where's @jberryhill

 

[Kate]

Now if you pull the same stunt as a domainer, and do not honor a sale - expect to see your account and bidding privileges nuked forever.

 

[Bluhorshoe]

A good lawyer will help you get it back. That is very unprofessional on there part. I hope you get it back!! I will post your article on my Twitter account @georgewramos

 

[tonecas]

simply disgusting.

 

[pokainc]

Unfortunately I don't think you have a case. A good lawyer will use your knowledge as an experienced domain investor against you. They will say because of your knowledge that there is no way you would ever think that was the correct price for the domain. Then they'll do all their lawyer blah blah blah and it will be over. Definitely spend a couple hundred and consult with a good lawyer before you throw a bunch of money at the case.

1- Who decides the price is right or not..

2- If there are plane tickets listed at $150 instead of $1500 and you buy them, the airline company is forced to honor it.. I've seen it happen several times

3- If they took the domain back... what reason do they have? we should be the rightful owners instead of someone else?

4- Even if you check that box, if the conditions are excessive and made in bad faith, then you have grounds.
I've seen agreements that were signed but annulled by the court because the terms were not deemed acceptable as they were deemed excessively harsh.

 

[wwwweb]

Aw geez, you just jinxed it! You figure they are reading the 2 threads about this.

If the internet had stayed mum about this sale and owntype had transfered it away, I wunder if NetWurstSolutions would have taken legal action to get the name back?

Oh come on man, you think they employ stupid lawyers over there, they don't take our advice, this isn't their first rodeo.

 

[E-Promote]

Focus your time and energy on discussing all of this with a lawyer. Nothing but upside here for you if you take immediate action (if pro bono), including the possibility of exposing the BS of New Ventures with the publicity.

 

[tonecas]

maybe this occurrence can bring finally the domaining community to demand ICANN to clarify and stop the loophole that permits Registrars to take expired domains to themselves, in a clear unethical and conflict of interests way...

or maybe I am dreaming...

 

[jberryhill]

No doubt that is a probable outcome - but morals and right and wrong do matter.

Okay. Just out of curiosity, and leaving aside any legal arguments, where does taking advantage of someone who made a mistake fall on your right/wrong scale of morals?

Last week, I bought a box of junk at a garage sale for $10. A few days later, the seller called me up and said that while she was collecting household items to put in the box, her $10,000 diamond ring must have fallen off her hand because she has been unable to find it. I just looked in the box and the ring is in there. She is demanding the ring back.

I'm not going to give her the ring back, because I have morals. I paid for the box, the ring is mine, and she's a slimy wretched immoral person trying to cheat me out of my purchase. She sold me the box fair and square, so everything in it is mine.

Again, without reference to any "legal" principle, perhaps you can explain the moral principles involved in that scenario.

 

[jberryhill]

1- Who decides the price is right or not..

Good question. Let's ask on Namepros....

Honestly I think this was a steal, very surprise it was that low in the first place.

I was expecting this to be a 5 figured deal minimum.

 

[bobbarato]

The notion of 1 way street vs 2 way street.

NetWorstSolutions gets takebacksies when it suits/benefits them / they err but not when we err?

Hey, it looks like they will have their TOS/contractual out but we can still sharpen our virtual pitchforks and call attention to their increasingly poor rep.

 

[hookbox]

1- Who decides the price is right or not..

2- If there are plane tickets listed at $150 instead of $1500 and you buy them, the airline company is forced to honor it.. I've seen it happen several times

3- If they took the domain back... what reason do they have? we should be the rightful owners instead of someone else?

4- Even if you check that box, if the conditions are excessive and made in bad faith, then you have grounds.
I've seen agreements that were signed but annulled by the court because the terms were not deemed acceptable as they were deemed excessively harsh.

1. A group of expert witnesses and domain consultants would determine if the price was correct or not.

2. Airline companies are not forced to honor anything. They do it out of good will for a positive marketing experience for their company.

3. Under common law doctrine of unilateral mistake of fact , a contract is voidable if it's enforcement despite one party's mistake regarding a material term such as price would be "unconscionable" or if the other party "had reason to know of the mistake..." Where a posted price is so egregiously low or so dramatically over generous that a reasonable consumer would suspect it is a mistake, this doctrine would entitle the retailer to repudiate the contract.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm sure kate or berryhill could answer better.

 

[Michael M]

Okay. Just out of curiosity, and leaving aside any legal arguments, where does taking advantage of someone who made a mistake fall on your right/wrong scale of morals?

Last week, I bought a box of junk at a garage sale for $10. A few days later, the seller called me up and said that while she was collecting household items to put in the box, her $10,000 diamond ring must have fallen off her hand because she has been unable to find it. I just looked in the box and the ring is in there. She is demanding the ring back.

I'm not going to give her the ring back, because I have morals. I paid for the box, the ring is mine, and she's a slimy wretched immoral person trying to cheat me out of my purchase. She sold me the box fair and square, so everything in it is mine.

Again, without reference to any "legal" principle, perhaps you can explain the moral principles involved in that scenario.

Morally, returning the ring would be the right thing to do - and I think any decent human being would return it.

This situation, to me, seems different. This is a company that is in the business of selling products. They are responsible for pricing their products and if the situation were reversed they would not return the domain to someone else.

I think a proper comparison would be if someone had a yardsale and they sold you a box for $10 that contained a $1000 baseball card that they were aware was in the box (and keeping in mind you bought the box for the baseball card). Then they realize or heard that there was value in that baseball card and so they come to your house and take the box back without leaving a note. The $10 comes in the mail later with a sorry letter.

But this is just my opinion and you have yours. I tend to respect your opinion and posts - as I do here. So I apologize if my post/view was offensive to you somehow.

 

[jberryhill]

The notion of 1 way street vs 2 way street.

NetWorstSolutions gets takebackies when it suits/benefits them / they err but not when we err?

I'm assuming this is in answer to my question about the "moral principle" involved here.

So, fair enough. Whether or not it is moral for me to take advantage of someone else's mistake, depends on their past behavior. Is that what you are saying? I can deal with some people one way, and other people another way, depending on what sort of people they are. What is "moral" then, if I understand you correctly, is not really so much a function of "what I do and how I treat other people", but it more along the lines of "it depends on who I'm interacting with".

I mean, there's no one set of moral principles, so I'm not taking a position on that. One popular notion of morality is to treat other people the way you would want to be treated. The footnote to that is "unless they have it coming to them" or "unless they did some other bad thing to someone else".

 

[DNWon]

Again, without reference to any "legal" principle, perhaps you can explain the moral principles involved in that scenario.

I absolutely love when John makes us put our thinking caps on!

 

[ksusha64]

Networksolutions is refusing to provide auths codes for months. I had to be on the phone for weeks with them to get them. They lock the names against Icann rules.Basically for no reason.
Can we hit them with class action lawsuit for violating every icann rule possible??? I think most of us are very tired of their unethical-criminal behavior.

I'm assuming this is in answer to my question about the "moral principle" involved here.

So, fair enough. Whether or not it is moral for me to take advantage of someone else's mistake, depends on their past behavior. Is that what you are saying? I can deal with some people one way, and other people another way, depending on what sort of people they are. What is "moral" then, if I understand you correctly, is not really so much a function of "what I do and how I treat other people", but it more along the lines of "it depends on who I'm interacting with".

I mean, there's no one set of moral principles, so I'm not taking a position on that. One popular notion of morality is to treat other people the way you would want to be treated. The footnote to that is "unless they have it coming to them" or "unless they did some other bad thing to someone else".

 

[jberryhill]

But this is just my opinion and you have yours. I tend to respect your opinion and posts - as I do here. So I apologize if my post/view was offensive to you somehow.

Naw.... if we are talking about morality instead of law, then anybody's opinion is as good as anyone else's.

I do not profess to be a moral authority, lol.

This is a company that is in the business of selling products. They are responsible for pricing their products.....

Correct, and since I primarily practice intellectual property law, then whether there is or is not some applicable principle of Florida consumer law is not something I'd know off the top of my head. Yep, it is a company in the business of selling something (whether domain name registration contracts are "products" is a rabbit hole for another day), and, yes, they are responsible for pricing them. They do seem to state that it is also a business in which pricing errors can occur, and they take that into account by saying so.

...and if the situation were reversed they would not return the domain to someone else.

Okay, but if we are discussing some "moral" principle here, then the principle is something along the lines of "treat other people the way they would treat you if the shoe were on the other foot". That's a workable moral system which conveniently excuses the subscriber from having any moral principles of their own, but simply adopting the moral principles of whomever they are dealing with. More or less the "eye for an eye" thing, rather than the "turn the other cheek" thing.

Again, the law is frequently radically different from what anyone thinks of as "right" or "moral".