This often interpreted fine print in the feedback system has always bothered me. If a deal was struck, and at least one party executed based on agreed terms, I would call that a deal. It may not have been "completed" by both parties, but if enough time has passed to show that the other party has no intention of honoring, I would still call that a completed deal, just with a bad outcome. If in reality both parties must execute within terms to call it a deal (and only then be able to leave feedback), then the scum and crooks cannot be brought to light. I'm not speaking specifically of the outcome of this case as it's still new, but rather on the general consensus that no one leave feedback "unless" everyone is happy. That only leaves a skewed version of the feedback system listing only the "happy" people.
The only reason I bring it up here is that it seems that every time someone has an issue with another person not honoring a struck deal, there are a plethora of people coming out to say that no feedback be left even though you just got taken. I feel that if one person has executed based on a documented agreement, then the deal was consummated even it the other party does not honor. Ok, off soap box.