Dispute #203

Court Start Date Dispute Status Current Period Time remaining End Date
Onboarding 2020-06-02 14:10 Already Ruled Execution Already Ruled 2020-06-10 23:31
Arbitrable Creator
Dispute Resolver 0x5dce...025c

Unique Votes in all the rounds

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 2 0 1

Round 0

Yes No Refuse to arbitrate Pending
0 2 0 1
Round 0 Vote Casting Date
0x5fdab11e7d3ae700af9e8c50e976cd0a85b12438 No 2020-06-08 15:36
0x982f5698febb2b8d1b9a560228abbceafbb11568 Pending
0xf035561dce033ded865e15e69db06cffc88d9213 No 2020-06-07 20:46

Evidences

Evidences provided by Vagarish

Evidence #1:

Reviews Are Not Evil In a common transaction between consumer and provider, consumers' money, and a bit of provider reputation is at stake. This creates a healthy balance. If there is no way to damage providers reputation, there is nothing provider can lose. In other words, reputations are incentives to make providers 'behave'. Unless review is fake, reviewer can't be considered guilty. Therefore I vote in favor of NO.

Evidence #2:

The truth is not defamation Requesting a refund (even for a non-refundable) is okay, since the videograhper could show goodwill to refund it anyway. But he didnt responded to any of the requests, so a one star review is a harsh review, but none the less a honest review, which cant be labeled defamation. It would be defamation if the review was accusing the videographer of something which wasnt obviously true. The review shouldnt have been taken down, since the source can be verified and it is based on facts the reviewer experienced.
Check this Case on Kleros Resolve