Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1

    Registrar contracts

    Isn't there any such thing as a registrar with a contract that doesn't make it sound like they could rob you and sue you for complaining about it? For example:
    6. limitations of liability
    Under no circumstances shall DBP be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, special, or consequential damages for any reason whatsoever related to this agreement, your domain name registration, DBP's services...

    7. indemnity
    You agree to release, defend, indemnify and hold harmless DBP, its parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, shareholders, agents, directors, officers and employees and Your Registrar, from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, losses, damages or costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of or related in any way to this Agreement, the services provided hereunder by DBP, the DBP web site, Your account with DBP
    Maybe I'm the only one who actually reads parts of the TOS. I was considering a reseller for Tucows and read something that didn't make sense so I sent the following to [email protected]:
    Part of section 8. DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES of your registration agreement
    doesn't make sense. In the quoted excerpt below, where it says "Tucows is
    directed to do so by the judicial or administrative body..." it should say
    something like "Tucows is directed by the judicial or administrative body to
    reverse the suspension ..."

    If Tucows is notified that a complaint has been filed with a judicial or
    administrative body regarding your domain name, Tucows may, at its sole
    discretion, suspend your ability to use your domain name or to make
    modifications to your registration records until (i) Tucows is directed to
    do so by the judicial or administrative body, or..."

    Hope this helps.

    I sent that out a few days ago and received no response.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    complain about what?
    Bashar Al-Abdulhadi - KuwaitNET Internet Services Serving customers since 1997
    Kuwait's First Webhosting and Domain Registration provider - an ICANN Accredited Registrar

    Twitter: Bashar Al-Abdulhadi

  3. #3
    About being robbed. "You agree to release, defend, indemnify and hold harmless DBP..." makes it sound like you not only need to not complain, but you need to defend them no matter what they do.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    maybe need a lawyer to review it to make sure what it exactly mean
    Bashar Al-Abdulhadi - KuwaitNET Internet Services Serving customers since 1997
    Kuwait's First Webhosting and Domain Registration provider - an ICANN Accredited Registrar

    Twitter: Bashar Al-Abdulhadi

  5. #5
    I also hate it when they say "Because certain jurisdictions do not permit the limitation or elimination of liability for consequential or incidental damages, DBP's liability in such jurisdictions shall be limited to the smallest amount permitted by law." That leaves me with no idea about what they could be held liable for. Is there any state in the U.S. that allows elimination of liability? I hope not. Legal agreements as unfair as that should be required to have some kind of "This company sucks" notice on top, in big, red letters.

  6. #6
    Registrars' online legal fine prints, or arguably any online service
    provider's for that matter, are generally one-sided. Like everything
    else, everyone's got a limit as to what they can and can't do.

    While there are cases where the registrar has been remiss, there
    are also cases where the unpleasant things occur because of the
    customer's "fault", whatever it is. If the registrar continues to give
    out compensation for those unpleasant experiences, downtimes,
    and what have you for any reason whatsoever, they'll practically
    be out of business in no time.

    Not to mention they're taking their cue from netsol. If you look at
    netsol's legal fine prints, you'd see how unacceptable but legally
    "powerful" it is.

    Unfortunately the only way to get a registrar to change their TOS
    or whatever fine prints is to sue them and hopefully win. But for
    what, Heaven knows.

    You have to admit, though, that if you run an online provider for
    whatever service or product it is, you'd thank your lucky stars you
    have those online legal fine prints to try to shield you from idiots
    trying to exploit you. Like everything else, it's got its advantages
    and its disadvantages.

    Bottom line: it's a matter of trying to be smart enough to protect
    yourself, especially from the loonies out there.

    But we don't have to agree with those prints anyway...

  7. #7
    I think Joker's liability clause is fair.
    a. EIS AG has unlimited liability at all times for intent and gross negligence.

    b. Liability for simple negligence is excluded unless it concerns the breach of essential contractual duties or collateral duties of major contractual importance (cardinal duties). In the event of the aforementioned, simply negligent breach of cardinal duties, liability is limited to the amount of the typically foreseeable damages.
    I intend to make them my new registrar. Too bad they don't offer private domain registration and they're not in the U.S. but they don't sound like they want to take all rights away from their customers.

    Way to go, daddy!
    Last edited by Wassercrats; 05-27-2005 at 02:47 AM.

  8. #8
    Hmm...that go daddy footer would have been more appropriate if I was talking about godaddy...

    Well, now I can't access I can, after 30 minutes
    Last edited by Wassercrats; 05-27-2005 at 04:31 AM.

  9. #9
    Just note that how a registrar's legal fine prints would appear will
    basically depend on the "business climate" of where it's doing its
    business in. And you can bet they will adjust according to what
    arises and how they'll come out of it.

  10. #10
    I was just reading Drafting an Enforceable Limitation of Liability [LOL] Clause:
    Estey v. McKenzie Engineering, Inc., 324 Ore. 372, 927 P2d 86, 1996. In this case, an individual contracted an engineering firm to conduct a "limited visual review" of a house he intended to purchase. The contract, a single page, four-paragraph document that specified a fee of $200, contained a one sentence LOL clause in the third paragraph, which read: "The liability of MEI (McKenzie Engineering, Inc) and the liability of its employees are limited to the Contract Sum." Following a lawsuit and appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court invalidated the LOL clause, ruling it was vague and the specified amount ($200) was too low in comparison to the actual damages ($340,000).
    I hate to defend LOL clauses, but was it really vague? Thats the kind of decision that results in needlessly long phrasing in contracts, such as "you may keep no dogs, cats, snakes, frogs, turtles, or any other animals in your apartment."

    It should be illegal to limit liability to the "contract sum" or to limit it in a long, essentially all-encompassing list of cases, under federal law (U.S.), and it should be illegal under federal law to indicate such a limitation even if there's some other country that might allow it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts