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!

 

[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...

 

[ixex]

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.

I bought a domain for 5 figures from a British seller a few years ago, and was planning to use Escrow.com as I did not have any issues in the past.
Though the seller refused, due to hearing about bad experiences, etc. and wanted to use some British 3rd party, that turned out to be a total pain.

 

[xynames]

Only 1 person doesn't think it is attempted theft, everyone else does

Everyone? Even OP himself wants the thread title changed.

Yet they are still labeled a "thief" in the thread title. It seems to me such words are used loosely and freely far too often on this forum before the dust settles. Then all of a sudden everything is hunky dory. Just saying.

I doubt it was an attempted theft more likely buyers remorse, Either way I doubt we'll ever know.

Hopefully the mods can update the title and we all move on.

 

[Keith]

Everyone? Even OP himself wants the thread title changed.

I honestly don’t care what happens with the thread. Jackson obviously stepped in to help and I appreciate that. Was just trying to move on...

 

[xynames]

Nobody is saying the buyer didn’t eventually click accept.

That's exactly what ebook lover kept saying over and over.

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

 

[DotKing]

Thanks @Keith for this thread. The only purpose of their service is to ensure and facilitate transactions between parties. Insane.

 

[EbookLover]

I only keep posting the same thing over and over again because you keep reply with the same irrelevant replies over and over again. Furthermore, you keep assuming things that were never said and removing words from phrases to support your assumptions (which, yes, I have already said ).

I was referring to acceptance via UI

BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE

the thread was started. Anything else is irrelevant.

You cannot read just one post or sentence. You have to read all posts and sentences to put things in context!

 

[Shimmy]

Only 1 person doesn't think it is attempted theft, everyone else does

Everyone? Even OP himself wants the thread title changed.

attempted theft is different than theft or a thief. It was attempted unsuccessfully. So yes, you are the only person that does not think this was attempted theft.

 

[EbookLover]

---

 

[xynames]

you are the only person that does not think this was attempted theft.

Shimmy read my post. If you're not going to read, don't post. Is my name BaileyUK? Am I the only one who doesn't think it was attempted theft?

I doubt it was an attempted theft more likely buyers remorse, Either way I doubt we'll ever know.

 

[EbookLover]

If you're not going to read, don't post.

You would do well to follow your own advice.

 

[xynames]

eBook Lover you said NEVER clicked to accept and then went into a diatribe about the difference between clicking to accept via escrow UI and accepting the push. If what you meant all along was the difference between BEFORE and AFTER this thread, then I apologize, I did not understand what you were trying to say. But never to me, means...never!

It was always obvious to me that buyer clicked to accept after this thread was started.


Nevertheless I am still saying that escrow.com did not promote a thief, and buyer did not act because of this thread...because buyer never read this thread! (And when I say "never" I mean...never.)

 

[wwwweb]

This has always been an issue, you push the domain, then hold your breath, they accept, they think they have paid, they have the domain, they don't care they are done. Many do not bother to go back in, and close out the transaction. So this is the fun part, you start forwarding your transfer confirmation emails, you get emails back saying the transaction is not yet complete, and the dance begins.

Yes, concierge should have been used in this situation. I am not sure if it still operates on a percentage of the whole sale, or it caps off at a certain point, given if the deal is very large the cost shouldn't be anymore to handle a push.

There should be a standard response protocol for this at this point in the cycle. That tells both sides that they are investigating, and will work with the register to figure this out. I can understand asking the two parties to work it out, but given this person got the idea, I will take the push, put it into privacy, and nobody will be the wiser, and I will get a refund, wow, what a perfect world I live in. I would say his inspection period is in play if he wants to cancel the sale, but the domain needs to be returned.

 

[EbookLover]

Some people just can never be wrong. I'll just have to accept that because I cannot do anything about it.

 

[Internet.Domains]

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.

So exactly who are you blaming for "the bad PR and reviews?"

 

[Shimmy]

Yes, concierge should have been used in this situation

For what possible reason? Low 5 figures is not a big sale. Normal Escrow works smoothly 99.99% of the time in this situation. When it doesn't Escrow.com needs to be contacted, and after some frustration it works out. You want to throw more dollars at Escrow.com so they do their job? Stopping attempted theft is supposed to be done at a basic level. As such it did. The only problem here was lazy Escrow.com employees. If Escrow.com employees were not being lazy, there would be no posting here, and seller would have been paid after the investigation