When a transaction between members of our platform deteriorates into a dispute and requires involvement by our team’s arbiters to resolve, our role is no more or less than to enforce that each participant of the transaction upholds their responsibilities.
However, these disputes most often occur as a result of miscommunication, rather than malicious intent, and so it is in fact a lack of mutual understanding regarding the responsibilities that each participant is bound by which causes deals to fall through.
Even if a full list of responsibilities isn't verbally discussed, many must fall on either one party or the other. This Merchant Agreement was created to outline the responsibilities that each transacting party will be bound to if they fail to communicate and agree upon a differently assigned set of responsibilities for BuiltByBit to enforce.
Publicly outlining these responsibilities ensures that our enforcement of your transactions is both reliable and transparent. We would like for every participant in a transaction to engage only while fully aware of what to expect from their transacting partner(s), and what will be expected of them in return.
These responsibilities were decided upon with the best interests of the entire community in mind, as well as what is most commonly assumed by the majority of transaction participants where communication was not used to verify that those assumptions were mutual. These responsibilities may not necessarily always be what’s most desired by you and your transacting partner(s), so it is strongly encouraged that you communicate with them and ensure that everyone is both on the same page and satisfied with the arrangement.
If a participant of the transaction loses or does not receive their due return for any reason, even if it is at no failure of the other participant(s), if they are available, they will take whatever reasonable actions are accessible to them to recover what was lost, unsuccessfully delivered, or delivered in excess, and deliver it to its rightful recipient. Reasonable actions include but are not limited to: Charging back a payment and re-sending it to the necessary location. Providing another downloadable copy of a product. Contacting relevant support services accessible only to them, in request of assistance. Returning unearned payment for an incomplete portion of a service or transaction.
Changes may be made to the agreement at any point and are enforceable if, and only if, they are mutually agreed upon by the involved parties. Changes not agreed upon may not be enforced. If changes which are agreed upon contradict, nullify, or modify any pre-existing terms of the agreement, those specific pre-existing terms will no longer be enforceable to the extent with which they are incompatible. Agreement to a suggestion of altered terms may be observed as being implicit based on a lack of negative response to the suggestion, a lack of subsequent counter-suggestions and or a change of behavior relevant to the agreement which align only with the suggested terms.
The provider of the product is responsible for ensuring that it is compatible with the product receiver’s platform. Any information the provider needs to ensure that they can deliver a compatible product is the provider’s responsibility to ask for. (e.g java version, server software, server version, etc) If there are any limitations to the product’s compatibility, that needs to be made known to the receiver prior to the transaction’s initiation. If there are no limitations made known to the receiver by the provider, then the receiver should be able to assume that it will work for them.
If the product or service fails to be provided before an agreed deadline, the waiting party is granted withdrawal rights. If a deadline is missed, but the waiting party continues with the deal rather than inform the other party of their intent to withdraw or seek the agreed compensation, the missed deadline is implicitly dismissed. If either party wishes to continue the deal with a new deadline, the new one must be mutually agreed upon. Any bugs found or maintenance required after the receiver indicates that they are satisfied are not bound by the deadline for completion. If no explicit deadline is in effect, a week of delays is provided in addition to the time required to complete the necessary tasks. If one party’s ability to satisfy their responsibilities is delayed by another transaction participant, the one doing the delaying assumes responsibility for that lost time.
The provider of a product is responsible for informing the receiver of every hard dependency which their product requires, and which the receiver could potentially be lacking or lose access to. This needs to be communicated prior to the transaction’s initiation. These dependencies could be public software, paid software, a website that must be online, an externally hosted file that needs to be public, a HWID / other activation key, or any other form of prerequisite or requirement in order for the product to function.
If an author fails to disclose a dependency on a third party server, website, license validation system, or any other online service which cannot be hosted locally and if offline would result in the product no longer functioning as described, then the buyer is entitled a refund for the author's failure to disclose essential information necessary in order for the buyer to have made an informed decision prior to purchase. If another type of dependency is not disclosed, the product not functioning will be regarded as a bug, and the author will be granted a limited timeframe to resolve the issue with the buyer as specified within the section titled Fixes. Resolving the situation entails informing the buyer of the missing dependencies and either providing it or a publicly accessible link to it.
If acquiring the missing dependency would come with a monetary cost onto the buyer, the author will be responsible for covering that cost, either through purchasing access to the dependency for them, or compensating them for the dependency once the buyer has purchased it.
If installing the missing dependency is outside of the buyer's skillset, the author will be responsible for installing it for them, either by doing so themselves or commissioning a skilled professional to do the installation for the buyer. The buyer will be the one who decides who installs the missing dependency, however, if a skilled professional is used, the cost of installation should not be unreasonably more expensive than typical market value for the provided service.
In the case of a dispute, claim or alleged violation of this agreement, BuiltByBit is authorized to designate a member of staff to act as an arbiter between the involved parties. Neither party may attempt to deny the other the right to seek resolution in this manner. This will apply regardless of if the involved parties possessed an BuiltByBit account at the time of the deal, or of the platform on which the deal originated or took place. All of the parties involved in the agreement are to represent themselves and provide both their full cooperation and all available relevant evidence to the assigned arbiter. Each party must ensure that they possess an BuiltByBit account through which a dispute may be resolved, and that it is registered to an email which will enable them to act on notifications of a dispute provided through that email within 72 hours. Failure to make oneself available to resolve the dispute after having been notified may be considered a violation of this agreement. The judgement reached by the arbitrating member of staff is to be considered binding and each party is obligated to comply with the ruling. In accordance with BuiltByBit’s policies, if the result of the dispute is unsatisfactory to either party, an appeal may be made for a different ruling only within BuiltByBit’s support system. During the duration of a dispute as well as following, the involved parties are encouraged and welcome to communicate and come to their own mutually satisfactory resolution.
If there are any bugs with the provided product, so that it does not function as described, or functions in a way which is clearly incorrect, the receiver is entitled a fix for the product. If the provider has revoked the receiver’s download license for the product, the receiver is still entitled these fixes. If not provided via official channels, they must be provided privately. An acceptable fix may include a separate product as long as the separate product functions as the original product was described and can satisfy the receiver’s needs as well or better. If the fixes are not provided within a reasonable timeframe and without undue delay, the receiver will be entitled to a full refund.
If a receiver of a usage license is not explicitly given permission to redistribute the product or re-sell their usage license, then the license is non-transferrable, and the receiver maintains full responsibility over all of their downloads. If one of the receiver’s copies enters the hands of a person who does not have a usage license, the receiver is responsible for ensuring that they all obtain a usage license, either through purchasing one themselves or through compensation provided directly from the initial receiver to the product owner. Successfully ensuring that everyone accessing the product receives the right to use it ensures that the initial receiver retains their own usage rights. Anyone the initial receiver provides compensation to the owner for will also receive usage rights. In the case of partial redistribution of a product, the percentage of the full cost associated to the redistributed portion of the product will need to be reasonably determined by the rightful owner, with approval by the assigned staff member.
The provider is responsible for ensuring that they have ownership of whatever item it is that they’re offering. Cracked or stolen content, in part or in full, will never be permitted under any circumstances. It matters not how many times the product has traded hands since it was stolen, nor how long it has been since it was stolen, nor how much the product has changed. If a provider knowingly or unknowingly transacts a product that they did not own full rights to transact, then unless they are pardoned by the receiver, they must ensure that the receiver obtains the promised rights, or provide equal compensation or provide a full refund. Equal compensation could mean rights to an identical product.
Payments are to be made only through the originally agreed upon payment processor(s) if available. If no payment processor has been specified or it becomes unavailable, both parties must actively attempt to come to a mutually satisfactory option by which the debt can be settled. The participants making payments are not responsible for covering the transaction fees applied by whichever payment processor the participants decide to use, the receiver will assume those charges. Thus, the agreed upon dollar figure represents only the amount that is taken from the account of the sender. The person making the payment is responsible ensuring that their relevant banking accounts are secure, and unauthorized chargebacks will not be filed. If a chargeback is made without permission from the holder of the funds, and it is determined that the charged funds need to be returned, any chargeback fees imposed upon the recipient of the chargeback must also be compensated by the sender. If the debt is not repaid in full and a ban is issued, all relevant licenses and rights will be reversed.
The purchaser of a resource receives two licenses. One is a download license viewable on our platform, and this can be revoked at any time by the seller. The other is a usage license. The usage license remains valid regardless of whether or not the resource page is still public or if the download license is still active. Delivery time for a resource download is not guaranteed to be immediate. Resource versions are not guaranteed to be bug free, but fixes for those bugs or a refund are guaranteed.
If the product is lost or ceases to maintain its originally agreed status due to a security risk which existed prior to receiving the product, and which was not communicated to the receiver by the provider prior to the transaction, the provider is held responsible. If the provider communicates all of the security risks prior to transaction, and the receiver accepts the product regardless, then the receiver accepts responsibility for the product’s security where those risks are concerned. If one of those risks comes to fruition, the provider will not be held responsible. If the risks are communicated to the receiver, but the provider dismisses them by claiming the product is "secure", then the provider forfeits exemption from responsibility for the product’s security.
In contracts where one party is dissatisfied with the performance of another, the contract must be terminated if they do not wish to continue providing the agreed wage, percentage of profits, or other time-based compensation for the continued duration of the contract. All agreed time-based compensation must be provided in full for the sum of time accrued prior to the termination of the contract, regardless of the quality of service provided while the contract was active.
Any product or service which has not yet been delivered may be refused by the receiving party. If payment for the product or service was provided prior to reception, then payment for the portion which was not received must be returned. "Lost time" is not something that must be compensated for unless mutually agreed to. Reversals are also permitted where mutually agreed upon, or when the other party has failed their responsibilities or creates a reasonable basis for believing that continuing the transaction could pose new security risks. A reversal includes all products, funds, licenses and rights transacted by each participant. If the transaction was for a service and the service cannot be reversed, compensation for the percentage of the service complete is owed to the provider. All other forms of partial-reversals must be mutually agreed upon. Fees taken by the payment provider are mutually understood to be controlled by the payment provider. These fees are not expected to be compensated for in case of a refund.
Enforcement of Overriding Terms
All mutually agreed terms between our users which conflict with what is written above will be respected and enforced by BuiltByBit in the event of a dispute, with the exception of terms which fail to be transparent and fair. Such terms will not be recognized and the Merchant Agreement will be used as a fallback for enforcement only to the extent necessary for covering holes in the remaining agreement.
In order to be fair, terms must not be potentially unilaterally detrimental if agreed to.
To be transparent, terms must be directly presented in unmistakable association with the agreement, as well as be clear and expressed in jargon-free and intelligible English. More generally, the other party must be given a real chance, prior to agreement, to be aware of and understand all of the terms that could potentially operate to their disadvantage.
Some terms are blacklisted, in that they are always unfair and can never be enforced. Others are greylisted, in that they are anticipated to potentially be unfair and should be written and agreed to with care.
Testing for fairness and transparency
When assessing fairness, it is useful to ask whether the wording places the transacting partner in a position less favorable than that which is otherwise provided by the original Merchant Agreement and by law or if it is crafted or presented in a manner that is without respect to the legitimate interests of the transacting partner.
Agreements should not contain concealed pitfalls or traps, and terms that might surprise or disadvantage a transacting partner should be given appropriate prominence. Terms should be presented directly and with proper consideration for the probable imbalance in awareness and familiarity with the subject matter, providing clarity wherever appropriate. In other words, the drafter should put the other party into a position where they can make an informed choice about whether or not they would want to agree.
When being assessed for fairness, the presentation, subject matter, and all circumstances surrounding the agreement will be taken into consideration. For instance, evidence of prior interactions that imply a meaning about the agreement’s terms differing from what would otherwise be literally taken will impact how the terms are interpreted.
Wording is under suspicion of unfairness if it has the same purpose, or can produce the same result, as the listed types of terms:
Terms which attempt to allow for a product or service to fail to be fit for their purpose, match its description, or meet the expected level of quality, care or skill
Terms which allow future unilateral altering of rights or responsibilities of either party
Terms which attempt to bind the other party to hidden terms, responsibilities or limitations on their rights
Terms which allot unreasonable discretion over the interpretation of the terms or undefined aspects of the agreement
Terms which prevent the discontinuation of a service or impose unreasonable barriers
Terms which discourage valid use of BuiltByBit’s tools, systems, resources or support
Terms which allow for legal rights of one party to be unilaterally restricted by another
Terms which would compel illegal or rule or TOS violating behavior
Terms which attempt to exclude or restrict liability for death or injury due to negligence
Terms which deny the other party full redress if a cancellation occurs or things go wrong
Terms which tie the other party to the contract beyond what they would expect
Terms which seek to allow for obligations to be left unfulfilled or rights violated
Terms which unreasonably seek to withhold prepayment if the contract ends
Terms which subject a transacting partner to disproportionate sanctions
Terms which invalidate the legitimacy of other agreements arising elsewhere
Terms which allow for responsibilities to be passed on to an undefined third party
Terms which assign risks to the party least suitable to bear them
Terms which are not explicitly present on either list are not inherently fair. All terms will be assessed for fairness when the time comes to enforce them. Improve the likelihood that your agreement will be considered legitimate by ensuring that any greylisted or questionable terms are specifically and explicitly agreed to by whichever party they may be considered detrimental to.
Terms which are legally required to be present within the agreement are not subject to evaluation for fairness and may still be enforced so long as the consequences of their presence are thoroughly expressed where necessary in order to understand them.
Terms will not be assessed for fairness as far as it relates to the cost or value of what is being provided. For instance, a product or service being priced higher than what it can be obtained for elsewhere or for a value that the consumer considers poor will have no weight in the assessment for fairness.
Stay safe, deal on site and respect your fellow merchants.