🚨Internal Conflict Resolution Policy
This section applies only to escrow.
Introduction
This policy is intended to establish the terms and conditions under which any claim or dispute initiated through the use of paydece products will be governed. The parties will have the possibility to choose between two means of dispute resolution:
paydece
Kleros
It should be noted that if you choose Kleros, said choice must arise from the description field in the escrow invoice or in the description of the Peer to Peer order. Therefore, this choice must be made prior to the start of the operation or transaction.
Terms and Conditions
It is established that for the products called Escrow and Peer to Peer, the parties will have the possibility of choosing between two means of conflict resolution. These are paydece or Kleros.
paydece will be the means of resolving disputes, if any, if the parties did not make it clear in the escrow invoice or in the peer to peer order that they would like to resolve it through Kleros.
If they have chosen to resolve through Kleros, the parties must be governed by the arbitration policies corresponding to this medium.
In all cases, paydece will mediate so that the parties reach a mutual agreement.
Must happen for raising a dispute in Kleros
These are the precautions or events that must have occurred for paydece to consider the intervention of the Court of Kleros appropriate for the purpose of resolving the dispute. It should be clarified that these events should not be reviewed by the juries of Kleros. It will be the responsibility of the claimant to check that they are raising a dispute in line with the time and rules of paydece.
The rules are the following:
That the buyer or client has sent the funds to the smart contract of the escrow platform.
For example, that a payment link has been generated for the buyer and the latter sends the funds to the custody of the smart contract in order to guarantee the arrival of the good, product or service in the agreed conditions. The claimant must also submit the proof of this to the case in Kleros Court as evidence for the case.
That the claimant (purchasing party) has not released the funds in custody in favor of the seller or provider.
For example, it may be that the purchasing party has received the product, good or service but is not satisfied with it, for which reason they can initiate a claim as long as they do not release the funds to the provider.
That the applicant has tried to communicate with the selling party in order to resolve the conflict and this was not fruitful.
Once the party has requested to resolve the problem through the decentralized arbitration system of Kleros, both parties, have to pay the corresponding fee.
For example, if within the stipulated period, only the buyer pays the full price, his claim will be considered valid and therefore the funds will be reimbursed without the need for a decision by the Kleros juries.
For example, if within the stipulated period, only the seller pays the full price of the claim, it will not be considered valid, and therefore, payment will be executed in favor of the seller (release of funds) without the need for a decision by the juries of Kleros.
For example, if within the established period, both parties pay the corresponding fee, the intervention of the Kleros juries will be necessary.
Amendments & Additions
We may change this internal procedure in order to make it match new market circumstances when necessary. You’ll always be able to check the updated procedure.
Last updated