Resolved

[Keith]

@Jackson Elsegood
Regarding transaction 4532982 for CBDcity.com for $11,500...

The buyer took possession via push at godaddy and immediately requested that escrow cancel the deal. I’ve provided loads of email verification to escrow to show my position. Meanwhile they are asking me to work with the buyer to get the domain back.

I’ll need to be paid or I will take legal action. My suggestion is that escrow do a little homework to verify the account push. I’ve done too much business with you guys for you to put this back on me. The buyer is a scam artist and I won’t play games!

 

[EbookLover]

duplicate post

 

[EbookLover]

What I meant was is that buyer clicked to accept the domain. That’s unequivocable.

Why he did it had nothing to do with this thread here.

And escrow.com was not protecting a thief.

Please provide proof that OP said buyer clicked accept function via Escrow interface

 

[EbookLover]

And to everyone else.

No one can appease, relate to, or cater to everyone. The world would stop turning.

If you read OP's post and replies, it is rather clear that buyer never accepted via Escrow UI interface. Had buyer done that, Escrow would have put the burden on the buyer, not the seller. Because it is the buyer's responsibility to make sure the merchandise and transaction are "up to snuff" before acceptance via Escrow UI. Acceptance via Escrow UI = transaction completed/over.

Escrow's #1 goal is to make money, not refund buyers who accepted via user interface just because they had buyer's remorse or claim foul play. Once buyer accepts, that means buyer approves of merchandise and authorizes funds xfer.

 

[xynames]

Please provide proof that OP said buyer clicked accept function via Escrow interface

That’s the way escrow.com works. I dunno why you’re spending a lot of time on non issues. Buyer accepted means ... buyer accepted.

If escrow.com stepped in to force closure OP woulda said that.

 

[EbookLover]

You take phrases and sentences and remove words so that you come out a winner. But that doesn't work on a forum where it's all there for everyone to see.
OP said...

The buyer just accepted the merchandise so it’s a done deal.

 

[xynames]

OP answer the Q. Did buyer click to accept or not?

We don’t need a treatise this time - I get that there was panic going on and I’m not saying it wasn’t unjustified panic but - just a yes or no.

 

[EbookLover]

Better question:

@Keith
Before you started this thread, did buyer...

• Merely "accept merchandise" via registrar push/transfer or
• click accept via Escrow.com interface as well as "accept merchandise" via registrar push/transfer

 

[Keith]

OP answer the Q. Did buyer click to accept or not?

The buyer clicked accept a day after, (and pay close attention), after the following:

1. Immediately trying to get a refund minutes after taking control of the domain.

2. After accusing me of hacking his godaddy account.

3. After I sent tons of emails with proof of transfer and threats.

4. After I made it clear that I’d take legal action and would not accept the domain back.

You simply do not take ownership of a domain and minutes later request a refund. That is an attempt at theft. The right thing to do is to immediately accept the domain to close the deal. Accepting a day later, after basically being forced, is alarming and unacceptable.

 

[xynames]

Obviously before this thread was started buyer hadn’t yet clicked to accept.

The question stands.

 

[xynames]

Okay see. Buyer did click to accept via escrow.com. This what ebook painstakingly describes as “via UI console.”

 

[Keith]

Better question:

@Keith
Before you started this thread, did buyer...

• Merely "accept merchandise" via registrar push/transfer or
• click accept via Escrow.com interface as well as "accept merchandise" via registrar push/transfer

No

Okay see. Buyer did click to accept via escrow.com. This what ebook painstakingly describes as “via UI console.”

That didn’t happen like you’re trying to make it seem. Read my above post.

 

[Josh R]

I understand Keiths position, and may have done the same thing if I didn't have a direct contact that could solve the issue.

The problem with creating threads like this is that it harms our ability to use Escrow.com in the future.

I'm currently closing a mid 5 figure deal that was very tough to get done because of all the bad PR and reviews that Escrow.com have.

 

[xynames]

OP never said that. And it is quite clear...
OP only has a few short posts in this thread. It's easy to go back and re-read them. You saw the word "accept" and assumed that meant "accepted via Escrow UI".
Maybe OP could have used better wording. Maybe. But, still, it was clear to me. At least I assumed "accept" meant acceptance of merchandise only, not accept via Escrow UI.

And to everyone else.

If you read OP's post and replies, it is rather clear that buyer never accepted via Escrow UI interface.

The buyer clicked accept

Next time something is clear to you (meaning ebook lover) "and to everyone else" (meaning hawkeye) try double clutching before you start posting wrong information a dozen times.

It was obvious to me that Buyer clicked to accept. Also obvious to me that he did it after OP started this thread.

But what I am still saying is that:
(1) Buyer's clicking to accept did not come about as a result of this thread. Buyer did not read it. Therefore, what benefit accrued from this sensational thread title about "escrow.com protecting a thief"?

(2) Escrow.com was not protecting a thief. The thread title is flat out wrong. After the dust settles, anyone coming here to read this will think that escrow.com is a bad actor, which I do not believe that they were in this situation, or are.

 

[Keith]

I understand Keiths position, and may have done the same thing if I didn't have a direct contact that could solve the issue.

The problem with creating threads like this is that it harms our ability to use Escrow.com in the future.

I'm currently closing a mid 5 figure deal that was very tough to get done because of all the bad PR and reviews that Escrow.com have.

Escrow gets a bad name because of their own actions. You don’t ask a seller to retrieve a domain from a buyer after you instructed them to transfer.

At that stage the sellers responsibility is done. It’s on escrow to research the transaction and get the deal closed.

 

[Shimmy]

Only 1 person doesn't think it is attempted theft, everyone else does.. Escrow needs the bad press or they will never fix their issues @Jackson Elsegood are you going to ask your employees to stop asking sellers to do their jobs?

 

[Keith]

But what I am still saying is that:
(1) Buyer's clicking to accept did not come about as a result of this thread. Buyer did not read it.

(2) Escrow.com was not protecting a thief. The thread title is flat out wrong.

This thread and including a top person from the escrow organization is exactly why the buyer clicked accept.

Not to mention all the proof I had to provide to show the buyers dishonesty.

 

[EbookLover]

This thread and including a top person from the escrow organization is exactly why the buyer clicked accept.

In other words, buyer did not yet click accept via Escrow UI before OP started this thread.
Buyer merely "accepted the merchandise" then proceeded to cancel the escrow deal.

Crystal clear from the start.

Theft.

Thread and title warranted because the fraud attempt was made clear to Escrow.com (assuming all that OP said was true about providing proof of merchandise acceptance by buyer) yet escrow put the burden on the seller to get domain name back, which is usually an impossible task, let alone an absurd request.

Although I do admit, given the industry of the domain and the price, concierge service was warranted and the best avenue.

This does not excuse Escrow.com's handling of the matter, though. Their lack of judgement and lack of action is what caused such a thread with such a title in the first place.

 

[xynames]

ebook lover you posted over and over that buyer NEVER clicked to accept. It was obvious to me that buyer DID click to accept, also obvious that he did it after this thread was started.

You keep posting the same thing over and over for no reason, all of it wrong.

 

[BaileyUK]

The Immediate attempt at a payment reversal makes intentions clear from the beginning, I doubt it was an attempted theft more likely buyers remorse, Either way I doubt we'll ever know.

 

[Keith]

ebook lover you posted over and over that buyer NEVER clicked to accept. It was obvious to me that buyer DID click to accept, also obvious that he did it after this thread was started.

You keep posting the same thing over and over for no reason, all of it wrong.

Nobody is saying the buyer didn’t eventually click accept. It’s what happened prior to that which matters.

If I steal your car today and return it tomorrow, I still stole your car...