@jberryhill ok... so besides some snarky comments, we're not much more enlightened on the issue from your comments..
Do I owe you something?
As noted above, this is a commercial transaction contracted in Florida (as I'm pretty sure that all of Web.com's contracts specify Florida these days), and I didn't bone up on any and all possible Florida consumer statutes and case law today as I took a coffee break between actual work, and thought "hmmm... I have a few minutes to kill before getting back to work, so maybe I'll see if there are any entertaining threads at Namepros". I didn't realize at that moment it was my duty to enlighten you.
One practical step here, short of dropping a $20k retainer on a Florida business lawyer as a retainer to file a lawsuit over a $2500 contract dispute, is that the name was registered to the registrant who had agreed to the transfer, and then transferred away from that person without their agreement. One could submit a compliance complaint to ICANN about that domain transfer and that will at least focus attention on whatever happened at the appropriate level of Web.com. ICANN doesn't report back to the complainant on those sorts of complaints, but at least between ICANN and the registrar, there will be someone at Web.com who will have to provide an explanation that would be discoverable in litigation later on.
There is no shortage of uninformed opinions on this thread. This contractual dispute is governed by (a) whatever the terms of the contract may have been (and there are some different opinions on that), and (b) whatever Florida state laws might be relevant to this sort of dispute. Absent someone dropping in with expertise on whatever Florida state laws might be relevant then I'm perfectly comfortable saying that I haven't the first clue how this might be resolved under them. Could I find out? Sure, if I spent the rest of the afternoon doing some research.
how is past behaviour irrelevant... it's used to discredit witnesses, it's used to create a pattern.... why are you pretending everything is black and white.
stop comparing apples and oranges
I'm not "pretending" anything, but you have certainly put some apples in your orange basket.
The question here is whether Netsol must honor that price, or whether either the doctrine of unilateral mistake (and their contract terms addressing mistakes, if any) applies. Another question is whether there might be a relevant statute which applies.
Attacking witness credibility, or establishing an m.o. in a criminal case have nothing to do with what is or is not relevant evidence of anything in a contract dispute. In fact, the two things you mentioned are explicit exceptions to the general inadmissibility of character or pattern evidence (under the federal rule linked below, and under similar state rules)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404
Rule 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts
(a) Character Evidence.
(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:
(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;
(B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:
(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and
(ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and
(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
(3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609.
The two things you mentioned are "exceptions", which you can tell by the clever use of the word "exceptions" in the rule.
There is no judge in the world who is going to be looking at a contract dispute where there is (a) a buyer, (b) a seller, and (c) a contract, and say, "Okay, let's dig into whether one of them is a slimy no good cheater with a history of this sort of thing."
