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!

 

[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

 

[wwwweb]

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

I paid for escrow fees, and concierge on a $30K sale, and it cost me a total of $534, Low 5 figures is a big sale, that is why he is saying transfer my money, otherwise if buyer doesn't want it, they are within their inspection period to kill the deal. I guess maybe in this canna so called space you have to tread a bit more carefully than you did with techies. I agree with everything you say, but that is in a perfect world, and we don't live in a perfect world. I mean if the fees were about $300 for concierge to avoid this headache, I am sure the seller has spent more than that in their time dealing with this in frustration. I think a good majority of sellers here would have opted for concierge in this given situation. Yes, you can save a few bucks by not using it, but I am sure Keith is making a decent margin, that he would want to speed up the closing, and take away some of the post transfer frustration which would have avoided this whole scenario. I understand this thread is more about what happend in terms of support after the sale, but that in itself is within the corporate structure, and hopefully this is a learning moment.

The actions of the buyer are not escrows fault, nor the sellers, it is simply the buyer, and whatever reason they thought they could get away with this perfect plan. Given the situation, it has gone past both parties talking to each other, the transaction needed to be put on hold, and investigated. The confirmation emails, and maybe giving permission to an account manager to talk to escrow regarding the confirmation of transfer, and take it from there.

 

[xynames]

Exactly. Buyer would have been within his rights to cancel escrow. Only wwwweb and I seem to comprehend this. Buyer would have had to return the domain is all.

At no point during any of this was escrow going to refund money to the buyer while buyer was holding the domain. Indeed at no point in any of this was escrow going to return money to buyer while seller was even merely claiming that he had already transferred domain. Escrow.com was not acting like a “thief promoter” that is absurdly wrong to characterize it like that.

When escrow.com asked seller to contact buyer to ask for return of the domain this was pursuant to buyer’s request to cancel escrow which - as I’ve been trying to say from the beginning - is not a theft attempt it is merely a fact of the way escrow functions - buyer always has an inspection period and right to cancel.

The liquidated damages (what you gotta cough up if you fail to perform) for cancelling are basically “escrow fees” - buyer remains on the hook for these if he cancels.

I believe that escrow.com terms state clearly that they will not act to enforce specifically an agreement (to force buyer to pay or force seller to deliver). Their usual role is only to transfer / deliver funds after buyer and seller both agree that it is okay to do so.

As a seller I would have been upset in this situation described here for sure too. But here in this instance doesn’t mean that buyer was trying to get the domain for free. At worst buyer was trying to get out of the deal. Plus as noted he would’ve still had to pay escrow costs.

Calling buyer a thief. Calling escrow.com a thief promoter - unwarranted.

Step back and think a little about the Contract that you enter into with buyer seller and escrow before pointing fingers. It’s all there in black and white including right to cancel.

When buyer (1) invoked right to cancel and (2) seller claimed that domain was already with buyer, it was a reasonable request from escrow to ask seller to facilitate return of the domain to buyer. I agree I’d be incensed too if escrow made it seem like I had to get the domain back after buyer cancelled but I’ll tell you what - if buyer had dug in his heels and insisted on cancellation at the end of the day the money would have sat in escrow until seller got the domain back and it would have been seller’s legal responsibility to get the domain back (not escrow’s).

 

[Recons.Com]

Why are you guys complicating things?

here are the facts, as offered by OP and not disputed by escrow.com:

- when instructed by escrow.com, he pushed the name to buyer and marked the transaction accordingly

- seller accepted the name at registrar (names just don't move without it), but then went on to cancel transaction first denying the receipt of the name and then basically claiming that his account has been hacked

- buyer tries to work with escrow, provides all proof needed, but escrow tells him that they will not help and he has to sort it out with the buyer.

- seller opens the thread and rightfully titles it "escrow.com protecting a thief...".

- After the involvement of CEO of escrow.com, the issue gets resolved

- Seller gracefully requests NP to change the title or remove the thread, as the issue resolved. This doesn't mean that seller is wrong, or had judgement rush or anything. He is just not holding the grudge and appreciating the help, albeit late and forced.

Claiming by some members that "buyer accepted the deal and that means they were not stealing" is completely wrong. Buyer was forced to accept the deal, as their money was locked anyway and all the facts were against them.

 

[Keith]

Exactly. Buyer would have been within his rights to cancel escrow. Only wwwweb and I seem to comprehend this. Buyer would have had to return the domain is all.

At no point during any of this was escrow going to refund money to the buyer while buyer was holding the domain. Indeed at no point in any of this was escrow going to return money to buyer while seller was even merely claiming that he had already transferred domain. Escrow.com was not acting like a “thief promoter” that is absurdly wrong to characterize it like that.

When escrow.com asked seller to contact buyer to ask for return of the domain this was pursuant to buyer’s request to cancel escrow which - as I’ve been trying to say from the beginning - is not a theft attempt it is merely a fact of the way escrow functions - buyer always has an inspection period and right to cancel.

The liquidated damages (what you gotta cough up if you fail to perform) for cancelling are basically “escrow fees” - buyer remains on the hook for these if he cancels.

As a seller I would have been upset in this situation described here for sure too. But here in this instance doesn’t mean that buyer was trying to get the domain for free. At worst buyer was trying to get out of the deal. Plus as noted he would’ve still had to pay escrow costs.

Calling buyer a thief. Calling escrow.com a thief promoter - unwarranted.

Step back and think a little about the Contract that you enter into with buyer seller and escrow before pointing fingers. It’s all there in black and white including right to cancel.

When buyer (1) invoked right to cancel and (2) seller claimed that domain was already with buyer, it was a reasonable request from escrow to facilitate return of the domain to buyer.

Just about everything you just posted is wrong. For one, the inspection period is really in place for tangible goods. With domains there is nothing to inspect. You either take possession or you don’t.

In this case the buyer took possession and knew ahead of time exactly what they were agreeing to take...

 

[Shimmy]

if the fees were about $300 for concierge to avoid this headache, I am sure the seller has spent more than that in their time dealing with this in frustration.

This is the rare occasion that there was a headache. The vast majority of the time transactions go smoother. $300 extra for 1 sale is not a big deal, but if you average 1 escrow transactions a month in the in the 10k range then that $300/extra per sale equals $3600 per year. It doesn't matter the margin, throwing away $3600 is just dumb. I'll take a 1 day headache over throwing away $3600.