[Asterisk-biz] DIDX.org responds...

[trixter aka Bret McDanel]

On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:01 -0500, Paul wrote:
> Amyn A. Ghulamali wrote:
> 
> > Dear Mike,
> >  
> > Mr. Martin O Shield was given an entire refund even though he agreed
> > to the terms and conditions under which I quote *_"that there will be
> > no refund as we are not the end vendor!"_*
> 
> If you accept the money, you are responsible. You might have excellent
> grounds for legal action aginst your vendors but you are responsible.
> Ask any lawyer to explain the concept of "consideration for services". I
> think he will tell you that you have to refund money and hope to get
> refunds from vendors who do not provide the services.

While that is generally true, there are some flaws with that applying
across the board.  I think the didx.org model does fall into that
category in some jurisdictions (I dont know about where they are
specifically as I have never had a need to read *any* laws from where
they are located - remember it is a global network and legal issues are
potentially a problem when it comes to national borders).

Auction houses that collect payment for example are sometimes immune
providing they dont stay in the middle after the deal is done.  This I
think is where didx.org has a problem.  They appear to stay in the
middle after the buyer and seller have agreed upon sale.  If they bowed
out after money changed hands (even if they were in the middle for
initial payment - in essence acting more like an escrow service) they
may be in a better position on this issue.  But there are so many
different sets of laws that apply, and in that situation there is where
the buyer is, where the seller is and where didx.org is that could all
complicate matters.

One thing that didx.org does try to do is state clearly that they do not
provide the service, but instead are a broker for the service, matching
buyers and sellers together.  Providing they have appropriate contracts
in place (not ever using didx.org I cant say if they do or not) they
would be entitled to their fee even if the seller backs out of the deal
shortly after, as their fee is for their service, which is just
connecting a buyer and seller.  They however appear to try to stay in
the middle longer and in effect become a reseller of the service and
potentially take on extra liability as a result.

I do think that a 'ebay for dids' isnt a bad idea, provided the clearing
house that is connecting people is just that, a clearing house and
doesnt continue to stay in the middle and obfuscate who the two are.
Granted certain checks need to be put in place or people will use it to
get potential contacts and circumvent the site itself, which means the
site makes no money and has no incentive to provide any of the services.
But that is an implementation decision and upto whomever is providing
that service.  Residuals are all but non-existant and anyone that knows
anything about money knows that getting residuals is far better than
actually working to earn the money :)

If I were to pay through such a site, I would also like to see a bonded
excrow service rather than a 'trust us *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*'.
I am not saying that anyone in particular is doing a 'trust us' type
payment service, just that I would like to see a bonded service with
more open information on the bond information (verifyable through a
trusted 3rd party - even if that is a government certification board).
This way you know that if there is a dispute later they wont just pack
up shop and walk away.

-- 
Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com     Bret McDanel
UK +44 870 340 4605   Germany +49 801 777 555 3402
US +1 360 207 0479 or +1 516 687 5200
FreeWorldDialup: 635378
http://www.sacaug.org/ Sacramento Asterisk Users Group
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-biz/attachments/20051130/ea17cbc8/attachment.pgp