It's relative, that's the problem. If you want to hold them to it then there can't be room for opinion. There is no specific # that is a legal variance that would dictate what is "approximate". If you wanted him to be held to that you should have outlined it in your purchase agreement. If someone told me they were going to sell me a house for approximately 200,000$... what would the legal variance be for that? There isn't one, that's the problem. I would have expected you to say "I need an exact size" or "I need you to confirm they are of a specific minimum size" or something along those lines if you wanted to ensure the size. By allowing the verbiage "approximate" into your purchase agreement, you left that up for interpretation, and not just your own interpretation.

Your bringing up good defenses and maybe that's what he should run with. My claim is that they are not adults and they were falsified in many ways to obtain funds.

So, a court must decide. Maybe they will find against me. I hope not, too many false variables, and he measured them perfectly in his ad six months earlier.

I can't see a defense, but maybe there is one. We shall see

Not exactly on the perfect measurement. Look back at post number 38 of this thread. For the turtles in that image of the ad, whether they are the same or not as the animals being disputed, the smallest was listed as being 4". The anterior and posterior boundaries of the marginal scutes of the carapace fall short of the beginning of the tape and well short of the 4" mark on that tape, respectively. By my eye, that turtle at the top is somewhere between 3.25" scl and 3.5" scl. Of course, he did not put scl in there and scl is a standard I explained in another post in this thread. Whether the turtle at the top is supposed to be the 4" animal or not, it is not a 4" scl animal. This is just something to keep in mind. I have not seen an instance yet where the measurements he took were accurate, so it did not go from perfect to imperfect. It went from stated and inaccurate to stated as approximate and inaccurate.

I can see what your referring to. So at best, that can be sloppy measuring. But can you see that causing, six months later, with the same turtles side by side, him mis-measuring these turtles, by up to 20%?

Can you see him being in the reptile business full time, and making this big of a negligent mistake?

Also, after everything, he agreed to refund in full.

Moreover, the turtles are confirmed as being the same, then after confirmation, Andrew Popp admitted they are the same. In addition, Andrew Popp listed three turtles in that July post, but once you look carefully, there are three pictures, but only two turtles, since two pics are the same turtle.

Then he stated they were sold, then told me they were sold, but then admitted that was also a lie and stopped talking. Then refused to provide the source or proof of het.

I guess the snake has to actually bite a person, and they have to actually die, before they will believe its really a snake.

So lets just assume that the measurements, the lies, the adulthood, the genetic hets, the previous post, the weirdness of the entire thing, coupled together with his criminal past, and the fact that he created another account to come on here and defend himself.

Lets just say its one big negligence claim, just plain old fashioned stupidity. Am I responsible for my loss?

Also Nick,

I want to bring up a few circumstantial items with regards to this member, Andrew Popp.

In a past post, I noticed he listed a turtle and put in the description that he thinks the turtles are het albino. I believe they are tortoises, and I dont know much about tortoises.

Anyway, he also sent me three turtles that are undersized tremendously, and on the July post, he stated they had sold, but also, he listed three turtles, two of which are the same turtle (in the photos).

But also he waited six months, and listed the same three turtles with dramatic characteristics that inflate the value.

So, in a different light, I would think with Faunas dedication to weeding out scamming, having nothing to do with me, I would think these factual discrepancies in his listing would put him in violation.

I have no dog in that fight, and Im not here to run the website. But I at least wanted to point these items out.

Other than a load of credibility, and possibly the money spent on filing a lawsuit that I suspect may be lost due to lack of meaningful evidence, what loss are you referring to? Your written acceptance of the turtles, despite finding upon receipt that their sizes were inaccurate, makes the size aspect a non-issue. You state repeatedly that the turtles you received are definitely the very same ones that he'd posted for sale several months earlier, yet I don't recall seeing anything more than simple speculation to prove that. You seem to be good at throwing :icon_bs: against the wall, but you're horrible at managing to make it stick.

If you actually had these recorded admissions of guilt, it's nearly inconceivable that they won't amount to a kill shot. If these recordings existed, I don't doubt for a second that you'd have long since rubbed them in our faces. Despite your insistence to the contrary, your posts here are telling me that you know you can't come close to proving that the genetics were misrepresented; so I think you're desperately hoping someone here will tell you that the size discrepancies will be enough to win your case.

Considering that you've completely failed to prove your case to a forum full of people who'd actively love having a new scammer's name to add to The List - people who actually understand the herp-specific aspects of the situation - I can't help suspecting that you're feeling a sense of impending dread about the prospect of convincing a judge who likely knows nothing about reptiles. If I'm right about you not having the damning proof you claim, it seems a real likelihood that the judge will have to fall back on the written contractual aspects to render a decision. Sadly, they don't seem to favor your case much at all.

I didn't read this whole thing, I'm very sorry.

With regards to accepting the size, my offer of proving the hets and accepting the size still stands.

But also the full refund promise was made after my offer of size acceptance.

Thanks

I understand this forum has not necessarily gone in my favor, but some great points have been raised, and one cannot expect to come on here and not risk criticism.

Besides trolls, everything is fine. I'm going to court with my case, and the judge can decide. I think I have a strong case. Someone saying that I went here and accepted the size would likely not be admissible and even if it was, it would be argued that he promised a full refund later.

And that more info surfaced that made any offers null and void. I'm happy to come in here and have a debate. It's not personal for me and it's a hobby. I am suing them and I am sticking to my claim.

That will never change, I wish the accused would come on here and argue his case, but instead he created a proxy fauna account and vouched for his own character. Then got caught and bailed out.

Meanwhile, I have stuck around and argued valiantly about my cause. I would not change anything about my inquire. At the end of the day, the courts will decide. And no info that I felt needed to be withheld was ever jeopardized. So it is what it is.

I do not know if they are or are not the same turtles, but incorrectly measuring once can conceivably go with incorrectly measuring twice.

If I came into possession of a species I am not familiar with, there would be a learning curve. To be in the reptile business as Andrew is does not mean he knows a lot about all reptiles or the conventions for measuring them. I am not by any means giving him a pass on inaccurate measurements or what have you, but these errors are at least conceivable if he is much more a dedicated squamate guy and much less a dedicated chelonian guy.

I am not saying you are responsible for your loss (depending on what comprises that or defines it). The size discrepancy was sort of accepted according to the text and the approximate descriptor gives him some wiggle room, too. The legitimacy of the labeling for the genetics (as het for caramel) is something I cannot even begin to know since it will take test breeding to prove out. You have at least three very knowledgeable guys who are said to disbelieve the label and I can understand and recognize that. The problem with that piece of things is that they do not know everyone, what everyone has, or from whom they got what they have. I know people with breeding projects of caramel/snow sliders that have never chosen to advertise and their hets are as real as anyone's. They can provide chain of custody and lineage information if they want to, but if they did not for some reason (privacy or maybe protecting a source), the turtles would be just the same in terms of genetics. It would have been in Andrew's best interest to disclose lineage/whatever information before the transaction was done. Back in the "courting" phase of the deal, I mean. It also would have been in your best interest to demand that information prior to payment. What is done is done now, though. If Andrew is being pursued through legal means over the matter, he might want to wait to share that information (if he has it; he might or might not have it). This is an unfortunate situation at this point and I am not sure how it will go, but the case is not an easy one to win. That is not said to discourage you, but there was a sort of flip-flopping of terms at points in the deal and that complicates things a lot. I hope for your sake that, when they mature enough and add a little more size, they prove out. If they do not, then there is the matter of the offspring value and splitting that out if the transaction is reversed or not if kept and used to recoup the value difference in the sale. Either way, you will at least be out time if they do not prove out (which is not technically the same as disproving, unfortunately). No fun ahead in my opinion.