news L7.com sells for $60k

[JudgeMind]

I noticed the no reserve auction for L7.com ended at only $60k and change. Seems very low for such a short .com name. I would think that Chinese investors would be all over that name and be willing to pay in the 6 figure range at least.

 

[DU]

...This was a bit complicated and we (Flippa CS / Marketplace Integrity / myself) were unable to intervene until it was too late.

The request to change the reserve price *was submitted* but the change was not enacted, and their support ticket not escalated as it should have been; that said, the seller *should* have alerted bidders to tip you / our staff / myself off much sooner - as was alluded to above - and do everything in their power to make enough noise. We would have simply reset the auction.

Because there was an attempt to reach out to us to change the reserve price with time to spare, I cannot deem that this was a simple case of seller's remorse. I do believe it was an unintentional mistake, although I don't think enough was done to alert the right people in time.

In the end, the seller refused to sell. This wasn't going to complete under any circumstances, so I cancelled it out.

This does not seem complicated.
Here are your words re-ordered a little:

"The request to change the reserve price *was submitted*"
"With time to spare"
"but the change was not enacted"
" I don't think enough was done to alert the right people in time."

So, you make a request in the right time frame but if you don't jump up and down or scream enough?

Maybe:

"The request to change the reserve price *was submitted*"
"With time to spare"
"but the change was not enacted"
Because we at @Flippa totally messed up and weren't diligent enough to notice a change to a CC.com domain auction as we were too busy letting Pole.io be re-auctioned again for the 15th time without a bidder.

If your policy allows changes through a certain mechanism you should be responsive to that mechanism.

 

[Keith]

I don't get it. The seller can manually change the reserve via their control panel. If they had a reserve that was met, they should not be allowed to submit a request to set a new reserve at the last minute.

This is a classic case of sellers remorse and they should be banned. They should also not be allowed to re-auction this particular domain under any circumstances.

 

[Recons.Com]

I think what Flippa is saying is the seller by accident removed the reserve. You can't restore/increase reserve if it is already met, I assume, so the seller contacted Flippa.

Flippa support ignored the ticket, the seller refused to honor the deal, because they had a ticket on the subject.

 

[Keith]

I think what Flippa is saying is the seller by accident removed the reserve.

So by that theory, the seller had a reserve and then deleted it or actually set it to $0. That's far fetched. If they knew enough to put a reserve in place they wouldn't just remove it unknowingly.

 

[Recons.Com]

Maybe he was trying to do reserve of $100,000 and did $10,000 and that got met very quickly

 

[Keith]

Maybe he was trying to do reserve of $100,000 and did $10,000 and that got met very quickly

Again, far fetched.

If reserve is quickly met then there is plenty of time to submit a ticket and follow up several times if there's no response. But assume reserve is met at the last minute. The seller had loads of time to actually view the listing with the $10,000 reserve glaring at back. Terrible business here!

 

[DU]

Again, far fetched.

Sounds almost as far fetched as getting a GoDaddy auction account banned for absolutely no reason.

I think @Flippa said that the seller wanted a reserve and they notified them at a point in time when it was allowed to add a reserve.
"The request to change the reserve price *was submitted*" "With time to spare"

Perhaps they should comment on when updates are allowed (before first bid? before reserve is met?) and then you can comment on the Platform.

This seems like a pricing mistake and these happen in many cases and the idea that you have to honor it is flawed. I still stand by the idea that when you buy something for a steal... in many ways it is. It makes me unpopular in this forum. I'm supposed to believe the honor amongst thieves thing, I guess.

If he requested a reserve to be added when he could and Flippa didn't act. Then it's a clear pricing mistake and there is supportive evidence of that. Enforcing a mistake is different to enforcing something based on seller remorse.

 

[Keith]

Sounds almost as far fetched as getting a GoDaddy auction account banned for absolutely no reason.

I think @Flippa said that the seller wanted a reserve and they notified them at a point in time when it was allowed to add a reserve.
"The request to change the reserve price *was submitted*" "With time to spare"

Perhaps they should comment on when updates are allowed (before first bid? before reserve is met?) and then you can comment on the Platform.

This seems like a pricing mistake and these happen in many cases and the idea that you have to honor it is flawed. I still stand by the idea that when you buy something for a steal... in many ways it is. It makes me unpopular in this forum. I'm supposed to believe the honor amongst thieves thing, I guess.

If he requested a reserve to be added when he could and Flippa didn't act. Then it's a clear pricing mistake and there is supportive evidence of that. Enforcing a mistake is different to enforcing something based on seller remorse.

I've known this for a bit now but it's far too clear...you speak out your ass.

You quote my posts and use your go to every time, the godaddy thing. As if you have a clue. Again, because new people might be reading your ignorant post...godaddy terminated my auction account and sited the reason for a particular auction I wasn't even bidding in. The owner renewed the domain post expiration as is a normal practice. I then contacted them and purchased the domain. Godaddy lost auction revenue which isn't my problem. Maybe they shouldn't sell inventory that they don't own. Hmm...

Now back to L7. No mistake was made. The auction spanned many days and there was plenty of time to notice listing mistakes and make corrections. The seller wanted more than the end price and is backing out. Case closed.

 

[FlippaDomains]

If he requested a reserve to be added when he could and Flippa didn't act. Then it's a clear pricing mistake and there is supportive evidence of that. Enforcing a mistake is different to enforcing something based on seller remorse.

That's what it came down to, in the end.

This would have been cancelled anyway. The only difference is that it happened after the auction, and not during.

 

[Keith]

That's what it came down to, in the end.

This would have been cancelled anyway. The only difference is that it happened after the auction, and not during.

Please provide more details and evidence.

Did the auction start with a reserve? Has the seller bought or sold at Flippa before? How many days of the auction passed before a support ticket was launched and how long was the auction scheduled to run?

 

[FlippaDomains]

Please provide more details and evidence.

Did the auction start with a reserve? Has the seller bought or sold at Flippa before? How many days of the auction passed before a support ticket was launched and how long was the auction scheduled to run?

The auction should have been canceled during, not after. You're welcome to pin it on me and leave it at that -- it was more platform/human error on our end than the seller, who is suspended nonetheless while we investigate fully.

 

[Keith]

The auction should have been canceled during, not after. You're welcome to pin it on me and leave it at that -- it was more platform/human error on our end than the seller, who is suspended nonetheless while we investigate fully.

Not trying to place blame on Flippa. It's clear that the seller was just that clueless, or, deliberately tried to make last minute changes as the auction wasn't going according to plan.

The winning bidder is the victim here. The seller should get zero compassion.

 

[FlippaDomains]

^ @Keith I wholly agree.

 

[Cdomains]

Wow, great sale.

 

[JudgeMind]

I wonder who owns or bought G6.com? as in a G6 private jet? lol there seems to be no sales history. anyone?

Or a Pontiac G6 car. Or the song "like a G6"

 

[DnEbook]

I own
69WM .com

Well that should get the chicks !

 

[DU]

I've known this for a bit now but it's far too clear...you speak out your ass..

My point is nothing to do with whatever actually happened or didn't happen in your particular case. There are plenty of people on this forum who have had their snapnames, sedo, paypal, flippa accounts banned and almost always it's the platform to blame. I have had a Snapnames account banned

My point is that there is continually a rush to judgment by people such as the scenario being "far fetched" and "The seller should get zero compassion" while requesting " more details and evidence. "

Your commitment to lambasting the seller is based on knowledge

As if you have a clue.

Maybe it was wrong to pick your post to quote or make a specific reference - and for that I apologize. But in general I don't like the rush of people to condemn one dodgy looking act when they've sought to be seen as a victim for arguably similar in the past.

If there is clear manipulation of the marketplace then everything people are saying is justified; however, when there are extenuating circumstances, there are extenuating circumstance. The agreement in this instance is between Buyer/Seller - Flippa does a wonderful job of making sure that they are totally free of all liability and legally unencumbered. In reality, the seller may have violated a Flippa contract and based on my reading there's nothing that can really legally be done as the contract / sale wouldn't be found as binding (in whatever jurisdiction applied- Australia?). Big deal. They get banned and I guess that's all people want.

I want to see the Platform held accountable for more which is much more impacting of the domaining industry and what people here should be looking for. Banning a seller is barely a blip on a radar. Making Flippa be more accountable, improving process, etc. has an impact for all future users and that's where the energy and focus should be (if people really care about "the industry"). Banning people from the platform is part of that accountability but avoiding the problems in the first place are a bigger part. This issue is gray, imho, and Flippa owes it to their users to ensure that this type of activity is black and white so people like you and me can't disagree.

From what I read there's some responsibility here on their platform. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe people disagree. Legally speaking, it's tough to enforce something that is sold in unintended ways... legally you don't have to honor genuine pricing mistakes.

 

[Keith]

My point is nothing to do with whatever actually happened or didn't happen in your particular case. There are plenty of people on this forum who have had their snapnames, sedo, paypal, flippa accounts banned and almost always it's the platform to blame. I have had a Snapnames account banned

My point is that there is continually a rush to judgment by people such as the scenario being "far fetched" and "The seller should get zero compassion" while requesting " more details and evidence. "

Your commitment to lambasting the seller is based on knowledge

Maybe it was wrong to pick your post to quote or make a specific reference - and for that I apologize. But in general I don't like the rush of people to condemn one dodgy looking act when they've sought to be seen as a victim for arguably similar in the past.

If there is clear manipulation of the marketplace then everything people are saying is justified; however, when there are extenuating circumstances, there are extenuating circumstance. The agreement in this instance is between Buyer/Seller - Flippa does a wonderful job of making sure that they are totally free of all liability and legally unencumbered. In reality, the seller may have violated a Flippa contract and based on my reading there's nothing that can really legally be done as the contract / sale wouldn't be found as binding (in whatever jurisdiction applied- Australia?). Big deal. They get banned and I guess that's all people want.

I want to see the Platform held accountable for more which is much more impacting of the domaining industry and what people here should be looking for. Banning a seller is barely a blip on a radar. Making Flippa be more accountable, improving process, etc. has an impact for all future users and that's where the energy and focus should be (if people really care about "the industry"). Banning people from the platform is part of that accountability but avoiding the problems in the first place are a bigger part. This issue is gray, imho, and Flippa owes it to their users to ensure that this type of activity is black and white so people like you and me can't disagree.

From what I read there's some responsibility here on their platform. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe people disagree. Legally speaking, it's tough to enforce something that is sold in unintended ways... legally you don't have to honor genuine pricing mistakes.

Thank you for this post!

There certainly should've been more attention to this auction by the admin because of the price point. Blame could probably be divided equally between the seller and Flippa.