Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowAceD
No, Cliff is owed nothing. The animal should have been held onto until the eggs hatched (an important step in proving an animal). Whoever is the first one to put the animal in a situation to be proven is the one who should be compensated. However, it should only be the initial purchase price of the animal or an animal of equal value (ideally not a hatchling).
|
I could totally stand behind that reasoning. Now...if the owner of the suspect het refuses any
reasonable compensation as not being "good enough"....what then? I do believe that is the situation that has been presented here.