Disclosure Of Information Prior To Purchase

[Michael_]

...........................

 

[fred]

I'm not a legal expert and haven't had this myself, but I would imagine Nominet wouldn't want to know. They are only concerned with who the registrant is, not who did or didn't say what to who.

 

[mat]

I wouldnt see any reason why he would have have to tell you any history on the domain name unless you ask him upfront about it.

 

[rob]

I wouldnt see any reason why he would have have to tell you any history on the domain name unless you ask him upfront about it.

Agreed - asking history etc ought to be on the list of questions to ask / get checked out .

As for solving the problem , it seems by renegotiating that will have things covered.

It does crop up from time to time, generally on traffic stats being overinflated and the like.

 

[Michael_]

........................

 

[Michael_]

.............................

 

[keys]

I agree, I didn't think nominet would want to get involved though was not sure if there was anything written in the small smallprint to safeguard someone against such an event.

Your right, there is no reason to 'tell' anyone about the history but was wondering if this example fell more into the 'disclosure' of very relevant details that would more than likely effect the new owner (as it had gone legal).

Hello by the way..

Michael

The price of a domain for sale might be higher, based on traffic. It is up to the buyer to check if traffic is genuine.

A seller should answer any questions honestly and complete the transfer. Claims by a third party against the seller are not inherited by the buyer, but any buyer should be aware that abusive use of a domain will invite remedial action.

 

[Michael_]

.............................

 

[fred]

Keys hello,

Obviously as this did not happen it is only my curiosity thats asking the questions. So what if:

The name was non TM'd and there were no obvious signs of passing off
Due to the above there were no need for any questions regarding history and no stats were offered or needed by the buyer
The solicitors letters were known by the seller
No abusive use of the name was intended
The deal goes through then the letters start arriving on my doormat to which I am surprised mine is the 4th (for example)
I then have no alternative than to start where my less than honest seller left off

At that point what do I do?

Cheers
Michael

Presumably (and as this is all theoretical) if you as the new owner were not continuing the sellers abusive use of the domain, you would be able to state as much in reply to the letter.

 

[keys]

At that point what do I do?

If your planned use for the domain is within the rules, then you have nothing to worry about.

Previous use of the domain or actions against the registrant are not your concern. If yu receive a letter then write back and say that you have no intention of infringing the rights of any other party.

 

[Michael_]

........................

 

[retired_member12]

...but I would imagine Nominet wouldn't want to know. They are only concerned with who the registrant is, not who did or didn't say what to who.

Wrong. It looks like this may become clear quite soon.

 

[fred]

Wrong. It looks like this may become clear quite soon.

Will be interesting to see what you mean by that.

But, in this situation, what exactly could they do?

If I sell you a domain without disclosing problems, Nominet would have no authority over me to make me give your money back.

 

[retired_member12]

^ In this (thread) situation, you're possibly right. In another situation, not so!