I'm new here, and I already screwed up.

[draqon]

I was selling a domain name on one of the forums. I informed the readers that the domain had a BIN price of $7,800. Someone sent me a private message saying "SOLD". A few hours later, someone posted a message on the thread, publically, saying SOLD. When I logged into my account, I only noticed the message saying SOLD that had been posted publically, and basically forgot about the private messages. So informed the buyer who had posted publically that i accepted his bid, and would sell the domain to him. Now, the person who sent me the private message is deeply annoyed and feels I should cancel my transaction and sell the domain to him.

financially speaking it doesnt matter since both customers are paying the exact same price. ethically speaking, who should i sell the domain to?

 

[Jennifer]

The timestamp should determine your buyer. First come, first served. That is what I would do.

Jennifer

 

[Michelle]

I agree with Jen and I would also ask the member whom made the offer in pm to post in the thread just to prove to anyone whom may doubt, that it was a real offer

 

[enki]

Eh, that's kind of a gray area. While technically whoever accepted your BIN price first *should* be the the one to get the domain, if you publicly accepted the other person's offer, then you have already made a binding deal with them. Obviously it wouldn't be very legally binding, but I imagine from a pseudo-legal perspective the winner would be the person who you made the mutual agreement with.

 

[frankiethepet]

Did you say anything about bids by PM?
I dont think you are obliged to check your PM constantly for offers if you didnt mention it.

But on the other hand, if you mentioned bids by PM i think the first bidder has the right to the name.

Its a mess and i understand both parts.

I see only one solution to this, inform both buyers about the situation and offer a new auction between the 2. Noone of them will like it but its the most fair thing to do in a situation like this.

 

[Jennifer]

You guys are getting too complicated... it's not that complicated. The first person to post "SOLD" is the buyer... period.

This happens to the best of us... I've done it myself. The ethical thing to do is honor the buyer that came first. The binding contract originated when the first buyer posted sold.

If either of the buyers have an issue... just send them to this thread.

 

[MeanerDomainer]

You guys are getting too complicated... it's not that complicated. The first person to post "SOLD" is the buyer... period.

This happens to the best of us... I've done it myself. The ethical thing to do is honor the buyer that came first. The binding contract originated when the first buyer posted sold.

If either of the buyers have an issue... just send them to this thread.

The original buyer who said "SOLD" in a PM or in the thread? Some buyers could wish to maintain confidentiality for a variety of reasons...

 

[Jennifer]

Whichever :sold: came first. First come, first served.

 

[MeanerDomainer]

Whichever :sold: came first. First come, first served.

I agree. However, not fun for the guy who was already told that they had a deal, but that's life...

 

[namewaiter]

i've had this happen to me at the other forum, and since mods or management has access to pms they can verify who the actual winner is based on time stamp.

 

[Reason]

Solomon isn't needed here.

If you didn't stipulate about PMs it can be assumed either method was acceptable, so the early bird gets the worm [big worm in this case].

I'm surprised you didnt check your mailbox, as a lil grey box does pretty much leap at you when there's one waiting; but anyway, that can be clarified by the PMer stepping forward; or if that's too public for them, sort it out behind the scenes with the mods checking things are as claimed on all sides

Edit:

Lol, just saw namewaiter's post as I wrapped this one up. Don't you just hate that?

 

[Archangel]

It happens to the best of us, yes. I believe you should sell it to the PM guy since he was the first to tell you that he was going to buy it. Now it may be hard and complicated getting it through to the second person that you opt to sell to the first person but that's life. Let the difficulty of it be your lesson to be more careful while selling domains.

 

[Jaco]

Another vote for timestamp. For future reference, it's usually advisable to post clear sale terms. For example, "First person to post "sold" in this thread gets it".

I find that is far and away the best method, as you often get people who want to ask an endless stream of questions via PM, while another buyer with ready cash might be prepared to buy right now @ your asking price. If you sell to the "right now" buyer, the tire-kickers feel slighted because they think you should've held the domain during their inquiry process, but you obviously cannot turn down a ready buyer as the non-committal tire-kicker might decide that they don't want it.

Simply stating "first person to post sold in this thread gets it" clears up any ambiguity and tire kickers can kick all they may, but will be forced to understand that at any time, someone who is more decisive may come along and beat them to the punch.

 

[gilescoley]

Anyone know what the domain was??

 

[zoogo]

I think you need to get checked for Alzheimer's, and/or quit smoking reefer.

Aside from that, I agree completely with Jennifer's first post (I like your name, by the way Jen), and think you should take appropriate action on it immediately.

Unless, like Dongsman says, you specifically stated the requirements for buying the domain name and one of the buyers did not comply - in which case the compliant one (who is therefore the only technically valid bid - a cop out sure but in such a case it is splitting hairs and the molevules matter) should get the domain.

You need to take the heat for your *F*up, because that's what it is. Posting that you agreed to sell to one when he came second is clearly unfair to the one who was first, it is entirely your fault, and just hope that you can end up selling it at all.

In either case, next time, consider valuing your domains a little higher - if two people offered BIN so soon after your post was made.

 

[VisualArtistFrankBonilla]

Do both

You guys are getting too complicated... it's not that complicated. The first person to post "SOLD" is the buyer... period.

This happens to the best of us... I've done it myself. The ethical thing to do is honor the buyer that came first. The binding contract originated when the first buyer posted sold.

If either of the buyers have an issue... just send them to this thread.

You said 100% correctly: The first person to "post" sold wins. The person who sent the pm, left himself open by not posting sold also. He had "A few hours" to do so. If I wanted a domain, I would have done both.
As mentioned above, the pm alone doesn't work, because you may not check you pm's often enough. What would you do if you sold it to the first person who posted sold, then checked your pm's, and someone had pm'ed you sold 10 hours earlier?

Frank

Frank

 

[AbdulBasit.com]

The first person posted SOLD is the right person to get the domain.

 

[Michelle]

financially speaking it doesnt matter since both customers are paying the exact same price. ethically speaking, who should i sell the domain to?

I would be interested in an update from the OP as to whom he sold to

 

[DubDubDubDot]

IMO once you tell someone you are going forward with a deal, hands have been shaken and it's as good as done.

That sucks for the guy who was technically first, but tough luck I guess. He should have posted sold and then sent his PM. Posting sold in a thread is the standard way of claiming an offering. Everyone knows this.