hi i am new to digitalpoint and placed my first domain for sale http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=261715 got more than expected reponse from the thread.. had bids upto 17$ ... but when it actually came to paying my luck was like this: 1. highest bidder: he only pays through moneybrookers.. i think that is understandable and i leave him 2. second highest bidder: he had bid 16$.. when i tell him to pay up he says that he is no more interested bid retraction 1 3. third highest bidder: also says that he is not interested bid retraction 2 therefore i want to know is this kind of fun bidding allowed.? u bid for a domain name as much as u like and then simply refuse to pay up when the time comes? should not this thing be made against the rules and when a person bids that should be compulsory and BINDING.. ur opinions in this regard will be highly appreciated
Okay, i did want the name, but like you mentioned there i could only pay through moneybookers. Hope that clears everything up on my part
well i did not say anything abt u dude.. i understand that it was a fault that we cannot hold anyone responsible.. it is a case of a misunderstanding.. but what abt the others?? they were just bidding as if it is a game. .and when it comes to paying up then they refuse
Yes, i think there should be a rule that its binding if somone bids and wins the domain they SHOULD pay its like ebay, that its a binding contract between the seller and buyer, hope you liked my opinion thanks travis
The other people didn't win Why should they have to then pay. Maybe that was part of their budget and once they were outbid, they spent it elsewhere. PS. Your poll is completely flawed. Where is the choice "They didn't win therefore they are under no obligation to pay you" Instead of starting athread in this section, you should take this as a learning experience and be more clear when offering something up for sale.
this is a very special case u r talking abt... they can mention excuses and it can mutual agreement between the two parties if the reason is sufficient enough...(case 1 of my experience) but the buyers no. 2 and 3 simply say that they r not interested .. no excuses nothing
1. if we forget my case : in general can u agree that the winning bidder shoud be binding for both buyer and seller?? 2. coming to my case,- i have definately learnt a lot.. will keep these things in mind.. i am just proposing that the winning bidder should be binding and that he must pay ..
I agree with yfs1 there... its perfectly logical - if they didnt win they are under no obligation to pay you
Not always...You never specified Payment methods accepted so it is assumed you would accept Paypal. If you had specified Moneybookers, then you would be in the right. You can't expect every buyer to have access every type of online payment system out there.
its assumed that it will be by paypal right.. but the winning bidder said that he is paying me through moneybookers ONLY.. and not through paypal.. which i cannot accept.. therefore i do not blame the winning bidder because we had a misunderstanding and therefore the deal ha to suffer.. but what if the winning bidder simply refused to pay out the money?? should it not be binding?
Champrock, you should have done the following: 1. Specified mode of payment 2. Specified that in case winning bidder refuses to pay up the second highest bidder should be declared the winner. You did none of the two. Really sorry, but felt like telling this
wow!! great suggestion dude.. i think that kind of a clause will be a great help.. thanks.. but still the question remains: the winning bid (under normal circumstances where there are no technicalities) shoud it be / be not binding??? everyone seems to be skirting this question
Never assume...although any bidder that can only pay with moneybookers should ask before bidding but if you don't clarify, its both your faults. binding how? The admin goes to their house to collect? Basically it is binding in a legal sense but you would have to go to court to enforce it. This means finding the real identity of the person, serving them, winning your case, and on and on chances are that is going to cost you slightly more then the $19 you might have made, so although technically it is binding, there isn't a whole lot you can do if someone retracts their winning bid
leaving my case: i learnt a lot from this post.. (teling u frankly..thanks to yfs1) general situation:at digitalpoint.. u can easily ban / warn / take away traderrating and a lot u can do at DP only.. i am not asking to go to that persons house.. i know that is not possible..
The admin or Mods will not ban, warn or take anything away You can leave iTrader and/or rep but that is it
Yfs is right - if they don't win you can't expect them to pay. If I don't win I go and look for the product/service elsewhere and lose interest in the auction I have lost in. You're not actually entering into a binding contract with someone until payment is exchanged.
that is what i am proposing.. if the winner retracts then the mod or admin should warn them and ban them if necessary.. @CountryBoy : this issue has already been discussed and i have agreed that the ppl who loose the auction cannot be held to be under obligation..