net-ARB Complaint Site:  idontgiveascam.com May 24, 2012 Title:  THIS IS THE STORY URL:  http://idontgiveascam.com/tag/net-arb-com/

Client's Complaint

petter sold his website and he start transaction with escrow.com the buyer send the money to escrow and now petter need to transfer the domain and the website to the buyer using the buyer hosting account.

the buyer received the domain and then he asked escrow.com to cancel the transaction escrow hold the money and now its a BIG MASS escrow want the buyer to return the domain to the seller the buyer claim he did send it back but he didnt escrow didnt want to be part of it so thy offer both sides to use http://www.net-ARB.com/arbitration_clause/ both sides paid $150 and http://www.net-ARB.com/arbitration_clause/ didnt do anything thy just send emails thy asked questions and by the end thy said thy cant decide who is right and who is wrong so thy let escrow re-list the money back to the buyer and the seller lost everything.

Our Response

We believe this individual misunderstood this part of the Arbitrator's Explanation:

We have reason to accept two different dates as the date on which return was initiated: Feb. 22 (when the new GoDaddy account was created) or Feb 24 (the date the first transfer request was sent). In either event, we find the initiation was timely. Therefore the only decision we can make with regard to the domain is to return it to the seller. (full Explanation below)

Arbitrators always have to decide - that's their job. If a decision on the date was important to the outcome of the case, the arbitrator would have done more investigating and decided which date was the right one.

Instead, the arbitrator was saying that it made no difference which date was the right one because either way it was within the 10-day deadline. It's like when a football ("soccer" in the U.S.) goal is scored; it doesn't matter whether it was a kick or a header - it's a goal either way.


Arbitrator's Explanation

Under net-ARB policy, the arbitrator must provide a written explanation supporting the decision. Here is a copy of the explanation that accompanied the decision.

The parties are under two separate contracts with each other. One is the Flippa contract for the sale of the website and the other is the escrow.com contract.

Under the terms of their escrow.com contract, the Buyer had 10 days from the time he rejected the goods to "initiate" return of the domain name. He rejected the goods on February 15. We have reason to accept two different dates as the date on which return was initiated: Feb. 22 (when the new GoDaddy account was created) or Feb 24 (the date the first transfer request was sent). In either event, we find the initiation was timely. Therefore the only decision we can make with regard to the domain is to return it to the Seller.However escrow.com terms go on to say, "Seller agrees to cooperate in the return process of the domain." Thus if any damage was caused by the weeks-long debacle, the Seller shares the blame.We do indeed find the site suffered devaluation as a result of its being down for so long. We find the site has lost 15% of its value and divide the blame equally, 7.5% to the Buyer for starting the process off entirely wrong in the first place, and 7.5% the Seller for the subsequent failure to cooperate as fully as possible. The Buyer's portion will be deducted from the escrow.That is our decision as far as the escrow.com contract. We make no ruling on the underlying Flippa contract however. Teh Seller remains free to pursue the Buyer to complete the Flippa sale, just not with this escrow account.