Shane Bellone Thinks It's Ok To Bypass Broker.

[talhahassan]

Hi

I sent two LLL.com domains which I was brokering to Shane Bellone in response to his thread in Domains Wanted.

He replied to me first about dropping the price.

I asked how much is his client's highest offer . To which he said how many months finance would be agreeable.

I told him owners won't agree to financing options.

He then asked me why I messaged him in the first place as his requirement was related to financing the domain and he will contact the owners now to see if they will agree.

I apologized to him for missing the financing part and asked when did it become a good business practice to bypass brokers and contact the owners directly.

His reply was " My business is to get the best price for myself and my clients. Bypassing a broker who may or may not have an exclusive contract makes sense. Saves them a commission which therefore saves me or my client money."

I am attaching the link to the screenshot as well.

imgur. com/a/l4VDz
I think it's totally unethical to bypass a broker . What are your thoughts on this?

 

[N-A]

Ok, last post. I've seen this a lot from you @AbdulBasit.com:

Dislikes: AbdulBasit.com

Seeing your namePros status, and comparing your replies to the likes of more reputable investors such as @biggie and others, I just have to ask with your bitterness taken into consideration, how much money did you lose in this ordeal?

 

[Brandables]

So now the namepros community has to choose between two wrongs.

 

[SoundsGood]

I quite literally buy in incognito to cut out all those affiliate leeches.

I did want to mention what I consider a much more important reason not to use affiliate links while domaining. We all get the business model and understand that most domaining tools and sites wouldn't be there without affiliate links. I'll also mention that I built my own tools so affiliate links don't apply to me, but please consider what a company like namejet or snapnames, etc is doing with that data once you click that link. You are literally giving them all the data they need to advertise clicked domains on their front page, emails, etc.. You are creating massive competition for yourself in the auction.

So if you don't own a percentage of some of these auction houses like some domainers do, you're just doing yourself a disservice by clicking on them. Don't get me wrong, support the tools you use, whether it be lists or one of the various sites, but do realize that you are assuredly doing yourself more harm as a bidder in that auction than good.

Moral of the story: Build your own shit. Get off the teet, and everyone wins.

 

[AbdulBasit.com]

Ok, last post. I've seen this a lot from you @AbdulBasit.com:Seeing your namePros status, and comparing your replies to the likes of more reputable investors such as @biggie and others, I just have to ask with your bitterness taken into consideration, how much money did you lose in this ordeal?

Disliking any comment is not the way of having bitterness.

 

[wot]

Money talks. As long as I'm paying, most will do business with me. Plain and simple.

Basically says it all, ethics don't come in to it. Quite sad.

 

[mad409]

 

[Edward Smeu]

1 and most important: what is the point of this thread? I can understand how frustration feels like but if OP didn't have exclusivity on the deal then what are we talking about? Don't work with Shane because he will screw you?! Who else thinks the same?

2 I never read or heard anything bad about Shane or the way he does business. And hats off for his way of seeing things in general.

3 I have the most respect for Abdul, he is a stand up guy and we all can learn at least a thing or two from his site.

4 Corect me if I am wrong OP but didn't we agree on a price for a LLL.com you were brokering a while back on wechat and a few hours later you told me that the owners changed their mind and the deal is off?! What was that?! (I am not sure that was you because I blocked the contact after that). How is that ethical brokering?!

5 This double or triple broker stuff is always shady. If you are a broker, you don't go to other brokers to find you a buyer, you find him yourself.

My 5 cents.

 

[Addison]

How is this smart business? You hire a broker and they work very long hours for you for months on end, and you don't credit them with commission on a sale generated by their lead?

We're talking about Shane's involvement. He did not hire a broker. He did not sign a contract with a broker.

Apples and oranges.

 

[HUKU]

Yeah, the word you're looking for is "contract".

No, I meant what I said: "agreement".

Obviously a formal Contract is ALWAYS preferable. However, if you only deal high end properties, you may not be aware that in practice most brokers of lower value properties work without a formal contract and on the basis of an agreement made through messaging or email. I think the reason is because the process of making a formal contract can involve expense, vetting and in some cases months of twoing and froing if either party wants to change terms.

Is an electronic or email agreement binding legally?

If you ask a lawyer, the answer is sometimes no. If you look at caselaw and precedent, the answer is most certainly yes and you can find thousands of cases online to support this. Even oral agreements are legally binding in some cases so I think its persuasive (Disclaimer: although I have a legal education and am practiced in contracts, I am not a lawyer).

However, I do think that if the OP has no formal contract but was able to produce proof (email/message) that the seller assigned him as his broker then I believe he should be treated as such in most cases. If he's an illegitimate broker, that's another issue...

Point is, @Shane Bellone did nothing wrong in this scenario.

I accept Shane was only trying to achieve the best result and has his client interests foremost. He has (at that point) no agreement with the seller so it appears he has not broken any agreement.

However, for me its not clear cut and I think that is evidenced by the pace and quality of this lively discussion. For me this is a gray area (at best), unethical (at worst) or maybe somewhere inbetween.

The last thing you want as a broker is for your hard work to be bypassed.
So how can you expect to do the same to another broker?
So if Shane, as a broker, pitches a domain to us then should we bypass him?

A simple case of: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ?

Looking back at our broker emails I see a many brokers attempting to bypass our exclusive broker and coming directly to us so this happens often. In those cases, we always replied the enquiry and CC'd our broker into that email advising that our broker was handling that domain exclusively. This is not only our obligation (as a seller who has appointed an exclusive broker) but its also a way to build trust between us and our broker which is MUCH more important to me than any sale. It also matters not whether our broker is exclusive or non-exclusive if the lead came from him...

Furthermore, I would add that in the past when we have had a broker (on the buy side) and there was another broker (on the sell side) they made agreement between them to adjust/share commission rather than frustrate the sale or try to go around the other. I don't know the ins and outs of that and how it worked and im sure it can be legislated in agreements but it seems like a reasonable compromise (in some cases).

Advanced apologies if I have misunderstood....

 

[Joe N]

You may want to read this again "Bypassing a broker who may or may not have an exclusive contract makes sense."

So bypassing a broker who may have an exclusive contract makes sense to you?

I'd also just like to say that it's very unfair to analyse Shane's private conversation in a public forum. You're taking this statement too literally, Abdul.

Shane's comments were directed to the OP and the OP alone. Clearly he knew (or had a strong feeling) that @talhahassan did not have an exclusive contract, but Shane was giving him the benefit of the doubt (or at least exhibiting some social grace by making it sound that way).

Words can be twisted and taken out of context. Judge people on their actions.

 

[N-A]

Is an electronic or email agreement binding legally?

Yes, as long as all the elements of a contract are present.

If you ask a lawyer, the answer is sometimes no.

...because some elements are vague or omitted.

Even oral agreements are legally binding in many cases

Due to the fact that all elements of a contract are met.

The word you're looking for, in order to be legally binding, is "contract". In case you are confused about any of this, look into each element of a contract to protect yourself in the future: (1) offer; (2) acceptance; (3) consideration; (4) mutuality of obligation; (5) competency and capacity; and, in certain circumstances, (6) a written instrument.

Even if all were met, which nothing was, I'd still argue the competency of the broker as he didn't read "financing" in the original post.

What goes around, comes around. Well, you know what? Sales will always come around. And, they will always be paid for in full when you are protected with a contract, whether that be of exclusivity or not. Otherwise, you're just an affiliate marketer calling yourself a broker.

 

[N-A]

Basically says it all, ethics don't come in to it. Quite sad.

The problem with ethics is that there are no clear boundaries on what is ethical and unethical, unlike what is legal and illegal. Nothing is in writing per say in regards to ethics. Business ethics have been taught to me in both undergrad and graduate level studies. However, they are just principles to follow: They say do the right thing; do the legal thing. Business ethics being taught are to prevent future ENRON cases from happening. You may be "ethical" stating that it's okay for a person to broker a name without exclusivity, which, it is. Though, I'd assume the so-called "broker" had a stronger partnership with the owner of the name that the owner would uphold the commission had the broker sent a lead his way.

In this case, Shane was presented with names. Names a "broker" said he was brokering. While this may be true, he did not have exclusive rights and the owner of said name could have sold at BIN at any time, even while the "broker" was hard at work. That would cause more of a broker-owner problem than anything. Now, Shane decided to reach out to the seller and merely ask (I think). It turned out, the OP had no right to sell the name and it could be sold with the "broker" removed.

I don't see any unethical practices happening here in regards to Shane going around the broker to seek out the owner and possibly striking a deal. I'd find it unethical if the owner, possibly having some sort of a private agreement with said broker, selling the name to Shane. Still, it'd be out of Shane's hands and it would be a problem between the broker and owner. Shane would be out of the picture.

 

[wot]

The problem with ethics is that there are no clear boundaries on what is ethical and unethical, unlike what is legal and illegal. Nothing is in writing per say in regards to ethics. Business ethics have been taught to me in both undergrad and graduate level studies. However, they are just principles to follow: They say do the right thing; do the legal thing. Business ethics being taught are to prevent future ENRON cases from happening. You may be "ethical" stating that it's okay for a person to broker a name without exclusivity, which, it is. Though, I'd assume the so-called "broker" had a stronger partnership with the owner of the name that the owner would uphold the commission had the broker sent a lead his way.

In this case, Shane was presented with names. Names a "broker" said he was brokering. While this may be true, he did not have exclusive rights and the owner of said name could have sold at BIN at any time, even while the "broker" was hard at work. That would cause more of a broker-owner problem than anything. Now, Shane decided to reach out to the seller and merely ask (I think). It turned out, the OP had no right to sell the name and it could be sold with the "broker" removed.

I don't see any unethical practices happening here in regards to Shane going around the broker to seek out the owner and possibly striking a deal. I'd find it unethical if the owner, possibly having some sort of a private agreement with said broker, selling the name to Shane. Still, it'd be out of Shane's hands and it would be a problem between the broker and owner. Shane would be out of the picture.

Personally I think it sucks and I would not do business with people who act in this way,but simply my opinion.

In this case perhaps we should ask Adam Dicker for his opinion on ethics, or lack thereof?

 

[Joe N]

I don't see any unethical practices happening here in regards to Shane going around the broker to seek out the owner and possibly striking a deal. I'd find it unethical if the owner, possibly having some sort of a private agreement with said broker, selling the name to Shane. Still, it'd be out of Shane's hands and it would be a problem between the broker and owner. Shane would be out of the picture.

Nicely summarized.

 

[N-A]

Personally I think it sucks and I would not do business with people who act in this way,but simply my opinion.

In this cae perhaps we should ask Adam Dicker for his opinion on ethics, or lack thereof?

That's fine. I'm sure he wouldn't mind losing your business.

In this industry, there is business all around... because money talks. The difference between what Shane did cannot be compared to Adam Dicker as in Dicker's case, police reports have been filed. This makes Adam an alleged, until charged, criminal for what he has done if charges are filed prior to reparations being made and a settlement reached (if they haven't been done so already).

Apples and oranges

 

[wot]

That's fine. I'm sure he wouldn't mind losing your business.

In this industry, there is business all around... because money talks. The difference between what Shane did cannot be compared to Adam Dicker as in Dicker's case, police reports have been filed. This makes Adam an alleged, until charged, criminal for what he has done if charges are filed prior to reparations being made and a settlement reached (if they haven't been done so already).

Apples and oranges

He never had had my business and as I said, based on what I have read,I would not want to. It looks like with your "money talks" your business methodology is of a like mind and reminds me how domaining has gone down the tubes over the years.
I have been gradually selling off and moving steadily out of the business, there are other reasons, but one of them is it is certainly that it is not what it was, and a lot of that is the ethics thing.
It's a bit like etiquette on the golf course, it is becoming a thing of the past.

 

[sofiapartner]

Shane made it clear long time ago that "ethics" is not in his vocabulary. So - no drama here.

 

[Joe N]

He never had had my business and as I said, based on what I have read,I would not want to. It looks like with your "money talks" your business methodology is of a like mind and reminds me how domaining has gone down the tubes over the years.
I have been gradually selling off and moving steadily out of the business, there are other reasons, but one of them is it is certainly that it is not what it was, and a lot of that is the ethics thing.
It's a bit like etiquette on the golf course, it is becoming a thing of the past.

This is hilarious! You're backing a guy who:

1. Represented himself as a broker when he had no exclusive arrangement.
2. Wasted a buyer's time by not reading (or worse, ignoring) clear requirements.
3. Very likely did not consult with the seller about financing, thus doing a crap job and potentially losing money for his client.
4. Posted a private conversation on a public forum like a whiny child tattling on his sibling!

There is nothing unethical about contacting a seller directly to get the real story. Nothing! In fact, in today's world of scams, you'd be stupid not to do it, unless you know the broker you're dealing with.

Shane was getting shady information, so he went to the source to get the real story. That's the end! I'm truly horrified that there are actual experienced domainers in here engaging in this trash talk and speculation about a member of the community when they do not know the full story! Shameful.

 

[HUKU]

The word you're looking for, in order to be legally binding, is "contract".

The point is that if two parties make an "agreement", informally as often happens here on NP, it may not contain all the elements to make it a legally binding contract. It may not have legal effect or be legally enforceable in law but it may still be valid. Even if it was legally binding, I still accept that Shane still hasn't broken an agreement with the seller (since one doesn't exist).

Still, in most countries, it doesn't need to be legally enforceable to have validity because validity is simply based on mutual acceptance.

So if the OP has an agreement (that is not legally binding but is valid) with the seller that he is the broker of those domains and both him and the seller agreed that point, then he should be treated as such.

 

[AbdulBasit.com]

I'd also just like to say that it's very unfair to analyse Shane's private conversation in a public forum. You're taking this statement too literally, Abdul.

Shane's comments were directed to the OP and the OP alone. Clearly he knew (or had a strong feeling) that @talhahassan did not have an exclusive contract, but Shane was giving him the benefit of the doubt (or at least exhibiting some social grace by making it sound that way).

Words can be twisted and taken out of context. Judge people on their actions.

I quite agree on you that OP didn't need to disclose private message/conversation but what I found later in that talk wasn't fair at least to me.

 

[mr-x]

You may want to read this again "Bypassing a broker who may or may not have an exclusive contract makes sense."

So bypassing a broker who may have an exclusive contract makes sense to you?

Re-read my post. If you DON'T have an exclusive contract, you're not a broker, you're a middle man, a marketer, a re-seller and I have no obligation to use your service.

If you HAVE and exclusive contract to sell a domain and your client sells to me directly, it's your client's obligation to pay you, not mine.

That is an industry norm.

 

[mr-x]

you're breaking the law.

You'll have to site that particular statute in the law..

 

[Joe N]

So if the OP has an agreement (that is not legally binding but is valid) with the seller that he is the broker of those domains and both him and the seller agreed that point, then he should be treated as such.

And how do you suggest Shane verify that this agreement exists? Should he take the "broker" at his word?

 

[promo]

Re-read my post. If you DON'T have an exclusive contract, you're not a broker, you're a middle man, a marketer, a re-seller and I have no obligation to use your service.

If you HAVE and exclusive contract to sell a domain and your client sells to me directly, it's your client's obligation to pay you, not mine.

That is an industry norm.

I dont know what industry you are referring to, but it certainly is not brokered domains. When you have an exclusive contract, you trust and hope that your seller will honour it. If they do not, you do not get paid. I dont need buying leads trying to convince my sellers that breaking a contract is a good idea to earn 10% more. Thats bottom feeder attitude and frankly if you can not see that as a breach of ethics, then we are in different worlds.

But by all means, if you want to make a quick buck today and loose your rep tomorrow go ahead. Seems chasing the short term is most peoples mentality today. To me its kind of sad. I know who I will and wont do business with, and it certainly is not someone trying to screw me out of my payment any chance they get.

 

[mr-x]

I dont need buying leads trying to convince my sellers that breaking a contract is a good idea to earn 10% more. Thats bottom feeder attitude and frankly if you can not see that as a breach of ethics, then we are in different worlds.

You need to calm down and re-read my post and whole situation.

1) I never said it was ethical to convince a client to break a contract. The client is responsible to pay the broker according to the contract, no matter how he sells the name.

2) OP didn't have a contract. - no contract, no exclusive right to the sale. He's not even a broker, just a guy offering to "broker" a transaction.

3) If you don't have an exclusive contract, there is no obligation to let you act as a middle man.