- Case Number: a20121117.1
- Status: init
- Claimants: Marcus Mängel (SE) for CAcert
- Respondents: Christian S
Case Manager: UlrichSchroeter
Arbitrator: SebastianKueppers
- Date of arbitration start: 2012-11-18
- Date of intermediate ruling: 2012-11-21
- Date of ruling: 201Y-MM-DD
- Case closed: 201Y-MM-DD
- Complaint: External Dispute, CCA violation
- Relief: in re "CCA violation": rejected, in re "external dispute": deferred
Before: Arbitrator SebastianKueppers (A), Respondent: Christian S (R), Claimant: MarcusMängel (C), Case: a20121117.1
History Log
2012-11-17 (issue.c.o) case s20121117.368
2012-11-17 (issue.c.o) case s20121117.557
- 2012-11-18 (CM): Emergency dispute, I'll take care about this case as (CM), added to wiki
- 2012-11-18 (A): I'll take care about this case as (A)
- 2012-11-18 (CM): init mailing with request for CCA/DRP acceptance sent to (Support), (R)
- 2012-11-18 (CM): had conversation with (C), accepts to become named (C)
- 2012-11-18 (CM): CCA/DRP acceptance by (C) is established by role under SP
- 2012-11-19 (R): responded with outlined viewpoint
- 2012-11-19 (CM): forwarding (R)'s response to (A)
- 2012-11-20 (A): received information on account by support
2012-11-21 (A): isued intermediate ruling to (C), (R), (CM) & archive
- 2013-04-18 (CM): sent reminder to (A)
- 2013-07-28 (CM): sent reminder #2 to (A)
Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part)
Link to Arbitration case a20121117.1 (Private Part)
EOT Private Part
Discovery
- 2012-11-20: CCA acceptance is neither documented in CAcert systems nor can be deduced from gotten assurances
intermediate Ruling
In arbitration case a20121117.1 between CAcert, represented by Marcus Mängel (claimaint) and Christian S. (respondent) I come to the following intermediate ruling:
As there is neither any documented acceptance of the CCA recorded in the CAcert system nor can an acceptance of the CCA be presumed out of the assurances received we have to assume that the respondent never actively accepted the CCA. Given this assumption and rating the respondents inducement I cannot see the respondents intention to willfully violate the CCA or otherwise harm CAcert.
In re "violating CCA" this case is rejected.
Respondent is to be asked to withdraw external dispute and shall be informed on CCA and the proceedings. (This will be done by Arbitrator)
In re "external dispute" this case is deferred until response from resopndant is received. Intermediate action: Inform external dispute settlement body (PayPal) that clarification is ongoing.
This intermediate ruling does NOT affect the fact that the respondent, if he decides to recover his or create a new account, needs to accept the CCA in some step, but this is out of focus of this case.
Ruling
Execution
Similiar Cases