.co.uk bought, then .uk registered

[jasman]

Before .uk if you agreed to buy a .co.uk on Sedo, you would have paid and got the .co.uk. The agreement would have been fulfilled, end of story.

As I see it, today if you agree to buy a .co.uk on Sedo and you get the .co.uk, the agreement has likewise been fulfilled. Legally, no doubt the .co.uk domain minus the .uk rights can still be referred to as the .co.uk domain, just as it was before the .uk launch. If Sedo's agreement has not been updated I don't think there's a legal issue here.

Having said that I think registering the .uk after agreeing the sale is a lousy trick to pull, but since you haven't paid yet, you can still get in touch with Sedo and demand that the .uk is also transferred. If enough people do this and sales agents are inconvenienced they may wake up and update their system.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Having said that I think registering the .uk after agreeing the sale is a lousy trick to pull, but since you haven't paid yet, you can still get in touch with Sedo and demand that the .uk is also transferred. If enough people do this and sales agents are inconvenienced they may wake up and update their system.

He said he paid already. He could ask for the sale to be cancelled but the seller could simply insist that the legally binding deal is kept to.

I've no idea what would happen if you refused to accept the domain though. I reckon that would cause them some right headaches as they definitely won't want to release the money from escrow in that situation

 

[cm1975]

I've no idea what would happen if you refused to accept the domain though. I reckon that would cause them some right headaches as they definitely won't want to release the money from escrow in that situation

That's exactly what I'm going to do. Realistically, you can't go back to the way it was, as the right has been exercised.

I have had a reply from Sedo, which seems to be a complete cop out -

"Sedo recommends that all inquiries regarding the .uk domains be directed to Nominet directly. Sedo does not handle the .UK domains, so, for example, if you buy a .co.uk via Sedo, we will handle the transfer of just the .co.uk, we don't get involved in the process for getting the .uk as well. You can direct your inquiry right to nominet, and they can advise. "

The sales contract is established via Sedo, so I don't see what Nominet could do about it. It's either part of the contract or it's not. It's nothing to do with Nominet.

 

[Retired_Member38]

That Sedo reply someones like you're speaking to someone who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. Clearly Nominet can't do a thing about this in your situation.

Maybe everyone should start buying .co.uk's on Sedo then refusing to pay for them without clarification on whether it includes .uk or not.... the current situation from a supposed market leader is ridiculous.

Who is the seller here anyway?

 

[tifosi]

Hope SEDO actually read the thread - that's if they can still be bothered - it's a loophole they absolutely must close if their reputation in the UK market - what's left of it - is to be maintained.

Talking of bringing the industry into disrepute. If the seller is a portfolio owner then they will be know to quite a few of us on here.

If they're an AD member - past or present - then they should do the right thing. Really shoddy underhand behaviour. Maybe they thought they were dealing with an uneducated end-user. Either way, pretty poor.

If they don't pass on the .uk then they should be named & shamed.. just let everyone know the domain if nothing else. No one will deal with them again.

 

[cm1975]

Ah ha ......

Just found this - http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/sedo/125501-first-ever-co-uk-auction-5.html#post487297

Posted by a user called Sedo -

Sedo expects the seller to transfer the domain in question with any associated rights that may pertain to the domain at the point of sale. Further, the seller can indicate what they wish to sell with the domain in the ‘offer description’ box. A failure to transfer the domain with unclaimed .UK rights when the .UK rights were unclaimed at the point of sale or the seller has indicated the inclusion of .UK rights with the domain in the ‘offer description box’, would result in breach of contract.

Am I reading this correctly?

 

[Systreg]

Am I reading this correctly?

No, that would be the case if the seller had stipulated the .uk was also for sale alongside the .co.uk in the offer description box, if not, then the previous paragraph on the link you posted covers them:

Any domain eligible for the.UK equivalent transferred before June 10th would have the rights transferred as well. After June 10th, the seller can decide to transfer the domain with the .uk domain rights unclaimed or claim the .uk domain and transfer the .co.uk domain only.

 

[diablo]

Am I reading this correctly?

Unlike Systreg, I don't think the paragraph that precedes it is necessarily related, but that would be for Sedo alone to confirm or otherwise. Nobody else can give you a categoric yes or no.

The reference to "point of sale" typically refers to money changing hands - not when an agreement to sell is made, but what Dildeep means by that could be something else entirely.

 

[cm1975]

No, that would be the case if the seller had stipulated the .uk was also for sale alongside the .co.uk in the offer description box, if not, then the previous paragraph on the link you posted covers them:

Sorry I disagree -

A failure to transfer the domain with unclaimed .UK rights when the .UK rights were unclaimed at the point of sale or the seller has indicated the inclusion of .UK rights with the domain in the ‘offer description box’, would result in breach of contract.

It says
1 - "the .UK rights were unclaimed at the point of sale" OR
2 - "the seller has indicated the inclusion of .UK rights with the domain in the ‘offer description box’".

The way I am reading it is the OR says that the second statement is not included in the conditions of the first statement. They are therefore mutually exclusive. ie There would be no need to state the first, if it's only applicable to the second condition.

 

[diablo]

Sorry I disagree -



It says
1 - "the .UK rights were unclaimed at the point of sale" OR
2 - "the seller has indicated the inclusion of .UK rights with the domain in the ‘offer description box’".

The way I am reading it is the OR says that the second statement is not included in the conditions of the first statement. They are therefore mutually exclusive. ie There would be no need to state the first, if it's only applicable to the second condition.

Were the .uk rights still with the .co.uk at the point of sale - when you made your payment - or were they taken between you agreeing to buy the name and making payment?

 

[tifosi]

Would have though the 'Point of Sale' was when the sale was agreed. That's the contractual agreement. Hence purchase orders, purchase invoices, sales invoices.

Handing over money is completion of a sale contract whether it's instant electronic payment or cashing a cheque a few days/weeks later.

 

[cm1975]

Were the .uk rights still with the .co.uk at the point of sale - when you made your payment - or were they taken between you agreeing to buy the name and making payment?

Payment was made immediately after agreeing to buy the name.

 

[scooter]

Point of Sale in UK law seems to be when "buy it now" is clicked.

Edwin put a link on a post a few days ago which showed people taking non payers to court on ebay sales (and winning)

I would hope it would be the same with Sedo and German law.


What a mess though. One that was hotly debated on here a while back. If seller is on here they should do the right thing. Especially if they are a large holder. Underhand imo.


EDIT:
Edwin's post
http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/general-board/127209-any-good-loombands-have-look-3.html#post496858



.

 

[anthony]

This scenario is crying out for a DRS decision if you ask me. If you could afford to go down that route, it would be an opportunity to see Nominet's so called experts clear up the frigging mess that those greedy bar-stewards have introduced into the .UK marketplace.

 

[woopwoop]

This scenario is crying out for a DRS decision if you ask me. If you could afford to go down that route, it would be an opportunity to see Nominet's so called experts clear up the frigging mess that those greedy bar-stewards have introduced into the .UK marketplace.

I was just thinking the exact same thing. Bad faith is obvious here in my opinion.

This thread has definitely moved the argument further. I hadn't even thought about the possibility that you could:
1. win the auction for the .co.uk
2. pay in to escrow
3. receive the nominet transfer request
4. check the whois of the .uk (before accepting the transfer)
5. if they registered the .uk, never accept the transfer (and wait until Sedo have to refund the money)
6. if the .co.uk still shows in the whois as having the .uk rights, wait until you think the seller is sleeping and accept the transfer (before they can sneak the .uk registration)

As this whole case is full of deceit, why not just lie and say the seller isn't initiating the transfer?

At some point the seller will get so frustrated and realize you'll never accept the transfer, also what proof will they be able to give to Sedo that they can prove or have corroborated? None. Then the deal will timeout and buyer gets a refund!

 

[jasman]

Maybe we could have a poll on Acorn asking whether people think Sedo needs to either update its UK terms and conditions to clarify its position on the .uk rights loophole, or better still alter its system so all .co.uk sales mention whether the .uk rights are included. If hundreds of us (bearing in mind members of this forum buy, hold and sell a high proportion of the best .co.uk names) voted in favour it would effectively become a petition to show them that they need to do something about this now.

 

[aZooZa]

Despicable behaviour and ethics - using that short window of opportunity to scam in an obvious exploit of people's good faith.

 

[diablo]

Point of Sale in UK law seems to be when "buy it now" is clicked.

Edwin put a link on a post a few days ago which showed people taking non payers to court on ebay sales (and winning)

I would hope it would be the same with Sedo and German law.

That's related to breach of contract, not point of sale.

 

[diablo]

Would have though the 'Point of Sale' was when the sale was agreed. That's the contractual agreement. Hence purchase orders, purchase invoices, sales invoices.

Handing over money is completion of a sale contract whether it's instant electronic payment or cashing a cheque a few days/weeks later.

Point of sale is a very specific term. It is not the same as an agreement to buy as you are suggesting.

It's important because at the point of sale, the .uk rights remained.

 

[mojoco]

The onus lies with the buyer to clarify the situation before agreeing to purchase. It's that simple.
You can't keep quiet about the .uk prior to the agreement for fear of alerting the seller and yet expect the seller to do what is best for you. The seller is going to do what is best for himself. The buyer in this case is being equally as deceptive as the seller and should suffer the consequence.
Sorry if that sounds harsh but let's be realistic, this is business not a game. You can argue the ethics and morality until you are blue in the face, but without prior clarity you have to assume the worst.