Setting the record straight

It turns out he knew it was my business' domain after all

[ronin]

Last week, as many of you will recall, I rashly committed character and career-suicide by asking a question which ended up with me in the digital equivalent of the stocks, pelted with various rotten fruit and vegetables.

One comment particularly stuck with me:

And that is what you should be worried about - your reputation.

As the thread progressed, I certainly was. Character assassination is never a pleasant thing, but when the assassin's hand turns out to be one's own, it all feels alarmingly like the world has turned upside down and that existence - which previously seemed (approximately) okay - has suddenly become a gut-wrenchingly, conflicted, guilt-ridden experience.

The sentence in my initial post which condemned me was:

I can see (now) that my friend's father has always perceived - as a matter of good faith - that the website (and the domain) belonged to his business

Responses to this were many and varied, including:

You never owned it in the first place - you bought it on their behalf and didn't do the correct paperwork giving them ownership.

Morally it makes close to zero sense to develop the site to promote the business then behave in a way that kills his chance to sell the business. What a recipe for bad karma! [...] You bought it at someone else's request and on their behalf. IMHO it was poor practice not to put their name on it.

They absolutely own that domain name. You should have listed them as the registrant, and yourself as an admin contact.

it's time to hand over the domain and website gratis and move on.

I don't see any way that you can rationalize that you are correct. [...] In no way do you own that domain.

you misled your friend's father if you registered this in your company's name.

Honestly, reading your comments it seems like you are just grasping at straws here hoping someone will come along and tell you that what you want to do is OK.

The biggest misconception here, and I hate to be the one to say it, is that you thought you owned the site and content. From a technical, moral, and most probably legal point of view that just does not make sense.

Whenever various thread-participants indicated that I should have been clearer and made myself more explicit in the original negotiations and during the ongoing 6-year business relationship, I did try to point out that:

I clearly gave him the choice.

I thought I'd made it crystal clear that this was my business' website. Understand that prior to the start of this year, I have never produced a website for any third party.

We could and - to my knowledge - did settle this matter in February 2010.

it's not like they had to do any due diligence - I did it all for them. [...] Now it's beginning to look like they didn't listen to anything I said. And apparently it's me who has to bear the brunt of their lack of acknowledgement of what I repeatedly stated.

But my assurances that (certainly to my mind) I had laid things out in a responsible and professional manner and that I had said explicitly what I would and wouldn't be prepared to do seemed not to make much impact during the course of the thread.

Anyway at just past 8am on Friday morning, my friend called me and we had another long conversation.

She explained apologetically - and I was not expecting this bolt from the blue - that her Dad knew the site was the property of my business but had promised it anyway, since he thought in the event, I wouldn't attach too much value to the site and would end up just shrugging my shoulders and say "It was good while it lasted. So be it."

So he knowingly "sold" something (or, promised it, at least) that wasn't his to sell.

That rather changes the terms of the debate.

I would have posted this sooner, but I have been non-stop busy since last Friday morning.

I trust this leaves my name and my reputation in a marginally less tattered state than it was at this point last week.

I also trust that everyone here understands that (of itself) the [location][generic-keyword].com domain betrays no immediately obvious association with the business in question - and, after a request last week from the former owners of the business to redact from that site any identification markers or references to that business - the site no longer gives any visible indication that it has an association with that business.

[martinibuster]

I collaborated once. Never again.

[ronin]

I'm just glad that it's all over and that what I'd understood as a misunderstanding was actually an understanding I'd misunderstood.

[Andy Langton]

Good to hear that this ended in a positive outcome for you!

[tangor]

You still made the mistake of not committing the agreement to paper with clear terms. In that regard you still were in error. Having said that, I am very happy this is resolved.

Meanwhile...get everything in writing!

[Jonesy]

... what I'd understood as a misunderstanding
was actually an understanding I'd misunderstood.

Whoot! That makes for a great .sig!
Jonesy

[ChanandlerBong]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[ronin]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Two wrongs? What action are you interpreting as the first wrong... ?

Following the clarification stated at the top of this thread, here is only one wrong here:

So he knowingly "sold" something (or, promised it, at least) that wasn't his to sell.

I've never run a web-development agency. I'm not about to start. I've always been upfront about this.

Nor do I think this is particularly controversial.

Any other business has every right to pursue the same model - it's never been clear to me why more don't.

Renting real-estate to tenants is a well established business model.

There is no reason why renting virtual estate to tenants shouldn't be equally established and widespread.

Moreso in fact, since shelter is a human need, whereas having a canvas for digital promotion is not.

[tangor]

Find another analogy as this one does not work on so many levels.

The other party approached you with an idea for a site (their idea) and you said you could help or could do it for them. That you then did that and later claimed it for yourself could be seen as "conversion" (a legal term) as one possibility, or a "broken contract" as another possibility. In either case (or any other scenario attempted) there is no doubt that no clear understanding had been achieved, that both parties did benefit to some extent, and that in dissolution both parties should lose something.

The WRONG was not having a clear contract in the first place. That part cannot be ignored. HOWEVER, this did end well and should be viewed as a positive, though frustrating, learning experience. In that regard those two wrongs (misunderstandings on both sides) did produce a RIGHT way to do business in the future.

BTW if attempting to claim landlord status, do know that landlords only rent, they do not interfere with the renter's use of the property unless illegal activity, damaging to the property, or against public policy. IF however, the landlord is a participant with the renter that is another story. Pick a better analogy!

[Marshall]

If you believe you did nothing wrong, why are you still going on about this?

[LifeinAsia]

This thread has run its course, and thank you for your participation.