translator
Junior Member
What is the name of your state? I am from Ontario Canada, but the other party is from Delaware
First, I apologize for the length of the post.
I recently purchased a web site for more than 10 000 from an American seller. The transaction was completed on June 23. I now believe I have been scammed in two ways:
1) Misrepresentation of the uniqueness of the site
2) Misrepresentation of the working conditions of the site
1) This site was first put up for auction on eBay. In the auction, this site was presented in a way that made it appear to be unique. : not a "cookie-cutter site" for which the source code would not be sold, as the site was never meant to be a cookie cutter site, i.e. duplicated. Since the auction had attracted my interest, I decided to research the site. While doing research, I stumbled upon a Press release that seemed to confirm the uniqueness of the site: the site is described as the creation of a sole person, the seller, the only person behind the site. Edit: Also I found a post in a forum where he literally claims it is hand-coded. This gave me some confidence in the legitimacy of auction and I decided to bid on the site. The auction was canceled on June 20, having researched the site I sent an email to the seller and we agreed on a price. During our conversations on AIM I asked him to confirm that the site was unique and that he was not preparing another site, which he did. Unfortunately, I didn't save those convos. I have emailed AOL and posted on an AIM forum to try to find a way to recover them, but for now I am going to assume they are lost. And that is part of my first question: In light of the following discoveries I have made (see above and below), do I have enough proof without the AIM conversation that the site was misrepresented (eBay description and Press Release - there is no proof he wrote the press release himself, but the site is still presented as unique)? Maybe the discoveries below will help in assessing this.
What I discovered: Thinking I had a unique site on my hands, I set out to discover the functionalities. When testing a particular section, I found a link to an outside page. One web search later, I found out that this was actually a very widely spread script. This was not mentioned once on eBay, in press releases and during our AIM conversation. Result:
a) the site IS a cookie-cutter site with some various mods and customization.
b) this is not a unique site.
c) he couldn't sell the code as part of the auction because he doesn't have resell rights to the code, and that is something anyone on eBay would have been mislead by.
I bought in on the idea of the uniqueness of the site. I was never told this was a script built by a company that sells hundreds of those scripts. Had I been told this, I would have never bought the site, because 1) of the lack of uniqueness 2) the script company per se, which has a VERY bad reputation on the Internet. This information was never communicated, and while that is misleading enough, it gets worse.
Having realized that I may have been scammed I started scouring the net for information indicating the name of the seller, his usual forum name, his email addresses, etc. And this is what I found: on June 22nd, the seller posted a request on the script company forum to have the "powered by" link removed. Justification: the site has just been sold.
Considering the origin was never communicated prior or during the sale, this looks like a deliberate attempt to hide the source of the code and therefore does this constitute solid ground for a complaint to IC3 and RECOL?
Also noteworthy in this forum post, the statement that he would be buying "another" with all functions shortly - that is to say, he is preparing another site, contrary to the AIM convo.
2) When agreeing to buy the site without prior inspection, I did so under the reservation that he would sign a contract to fix all preexisting conditions, which he agreed to do. So I have a 60 days contract to fix bugs. Guess what? I have found plenty, therefore the working conditions of the site were misrepresented, and yes, you guessed it, he is not replying to emails.
The justification for selling was that a member of his family was diagnosed with terminal cancer (eBay description). Considering these circumstances and being a good guy by nature, I have given him the benefit of the doubt until yesterday, when I found the post in the script company forum, and after further research, finding posts in other forums where he basically says he is planning to sell his site on eBay... dated one month BEFORE the auction. My conclusion: his family member is not sick and I fell for the oldest trick in the book.
Another concern has been the hosting company. The site has been transferred to me since June 25, but I haven't yet received an email from them confirming I am a client and communicating my client ID. The reply I got twice was: "its going to be done today". I finally got the login info to the server on Friday June 29, after basically voicing my concerns that the previous owner still had access to the server. They finally gave that info to me, but I still haven't received any accounting or FTP info. I am not saying they are in cahoots but I find this very fishy, especially since they didn't change the login info after the site was transferred to protect me, the new owner of the site, i.e., the previous owner DID have access to the site from June 25 to June 29 to make changes, delete, add content that I could be held liable for, etc. And I still haven't gotten any account related emails from them. In other words I am very worried about this.
While writing this, I got an email about my AIM concerns and it appears AIM conversations cannot be retrieved in any way.
So on the basis of that I have exposed here - and I certify it to be true - do you think I have enough evidence to file a complaint to IC3 and RECOL? And what advice can you give me on how to proceed? I have gone to the site, but this is the first time I get scammed, I really don't know how I should proceed. Should I try to communicate with the seller? Should I just file it? What to do about the site?
First, I apologize for the length of the post.
I recently purchased a web site for more than 10 000 from an American seller. The transaction was completed on June 23. I now believe I have been scammed in two ways:
1) Misrepresentation of the uniqueness of the site
2) Misrepresentation of the working conditions of the site
1) This site was first put up for auction on eBay. In the auction, this site was presented in a way that made it appear to be unique. : not a "cookie-cutter site" for which the source code would not be sold, as the site was never meant to be a cookie cutter site, i.e. duplicated. Since the auction had attracted my interest, I decided to research the site. While doing research, I stumbled upon a Press release that seemed to confirm the uniqueness of the site: the site is described as the creation of a sole person, the seller, the only person behind the site. Edit: Also I found a post in a forum where he literally claims it is hand-coded. This gave me some confidence in the legitimacy of auction and I decided to bid on the site. The auction was canceled on June 20, having researched the site I sent an email to the seller and we agreed on a price. During our conversations on AIM I asked him to confirm that the site was unique and that he was not preparing another site, which he did. Unfortunately, I didn't save those convos. I have emailed AOL and posted on an AIM forum to try to find a way to recover them, but for now I am going to assume they are lost. And that is part of my first question: In light of the following discoveries I have made (see above and below), do I have enough proof without the AIM conversation that the site was misrepresented (eBay description and Press Release - there is no proof he wrote the press release himself, but the site is still presented as unique)? Maybe the discoveries below will help in assessing this.
What I discovered: Thinking I had a unique site on my hands, I set out to discover the functionalities. When testing a particular section, I found a link to an outside page. One web search later, I found out that this was actually a very widely spread script. This was not mentioned once on eBay, in press releases and during our AIM conversation. Result:
a) the site IS a cookie-cutter site with some various mods and customization.
b) this is not a unique site.
c) he couldn't sell the code as part of the auction because he doesn't have resell rights to the code, and that is something anyone on eBay would have been mislead by.
I bought in on the idea of the uniqueness of the site. I was never told this was a script built by a company that sells hundreds of those scripts. Had I been told this, I would have never bought the site, because 1) of the lack of uniqueness 2) the script company per se, which has a VERY bad reputation on the Internet. This information was never communicated, and while that is misleading enough, it gets worse.
Having realized that I may have been scammed I started scouring the net for information indicating the name of the seller, his usual forum name, his email addresses, etc. And this is what I found: on June 22nd, the seller posted a request on the script company forum to have the "powered by" link removed. Justification: the site has just been sold.
Considering the origin was never communicated prior or during the sale, this looks like a deliberate attempt to hide the source of the code and therefore does this constitute solid ground for a complaint to IC3 and RECOL?
Also noteworthy in this forum post, the statement that he would be buying "another" with all functions shortly - that is to say, he is preparing another site, contrary to the AIM convo.
2) When agreeing to buy the site without prior inspection, I did so under the reservation that he would sign a contract to fix all preexisting conditions, which he agreed to do. So I have a 60 days contract to fix bugs. Guess what? I have found plenty, therefore the working conditions of the site were misrepresented, and yes, you guessed it, he is not replying to emails.
The justification for selling was that a member of his family was diagnosed with terminal cancer (eBay description). Considering these circumstances and being a good guy by nature, I have given him the benefit of the doubt until yesterday, when I found the post in the script company forum, and after further research, finding posts in other forums where he basically says he is planning to sell his site on eBay... dated one month BEFORE the auction. My conclusion: his family member is not sick and I fell for the oldest trick in the book.
Another concern has been the hosting company. The site has been transferred to me since June 25, but I haven't yet received an email from them confirming I am a client and communicating my client ID. The reply I got twice was: "its going to be done today". I finally got the login info to the server on Friday June 29, after basically voicing my concerns that the previous owner still had access to the server. They finally gave that info to me, but I still haven't received any accounting or FTP info. I am not saying they are in cahoots but I find this very fishy, especially since they didn't change the login info after the site was transferred to protect me, the new owner of the site, i.e., the previous owner DID have access to the site from June 25 to June 29 to make changes, delete, add content that I could be held liable for, etc. And I still haven't gotten any account related emails from them. In other words I am very worried about this.
While writing this, I got an email about my AIM concerns and it appears AIM conversations cannot be retrieved in any way.
So on the basis of that I have exposed here - and I certify it to be true - do you think I have enough evidence to file a complaint to IC3 and RECOL? And what advice can you give me on how to proceed? I have gone to the site, but this is the first time I get scammed, I really don't know how I should proceed. Should I try to communicate with the seller? Should I just file it? What to do about the site?
Last edited: