Dav Kaufman - Beware

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

Anyone can abuse anything. That does not mean we should take advantage because of what someone could do. There was no forfeiture term that I saw.

I think our concepts of nothing differ. 16-17 hatchlings constitute something even if they fall short of the desire.

I see your point HOWEVER if you were to give your power company 16 hatchlings to pay your power bill would they accept that? No, because that's not what the agreement was.

If Dav had of said "while you are test breeding send me the normal offspring and I will sell them to try to make up some funds to refund you if that is what it comes to" I would absolutely agree but all he left Randy with was the work involved in raising and homing those hatchlings. I see those hatchlings as being considered more a hindrance than a benefit in this agreement. Love of animals aside, this was a business transaction.

Some people have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars to get pregnant, doesn't mean that if someone was owed 20,000$ and then the person that owed them the money got them pregnant they could say "yeah but you have that baby and some people pay to have that".

has anyone gone to his facebook and let him know that there are many offers on the table here to make good? Plus now besides people wanting him to explain the who "all the money" statement to a "trade" to "broker" he has allegations that he is violating laws selling unauthorized animals at a show?

Originally Posted by AllisonLeigh

I see your point HOWEVER if you were to give your power company 16 hatchlings to pay your power bill would they accept that? No, because that's not what the agreement was.

If Dav had of said "while you are test breeding send me the normal offspring and I will sell them to try to make up some funds to refund you if that is what it comes to" I would absolutely agree but all he left Randy with was the work involved in raising and homing those hatchlings. I see those hatchlings as being considered more a hindrance than a benefit in this agreement. Love of animals aside, this was a business transaction.

Some people have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars to get pregnant, doesn't mean that if someone was owed 20,000$ and then the person that owed them the money got them pregnant they could say "yeah but you have that baby and some people pay to have that".

From the distorted analogies you concocted, I can see that you do not see my point. This has become more about the display than an equitable resolution, it seems, so I have no business burning time to contribute to an illogical spectacle.

Good luck to all in reaching a fair re-balancing.

Would this option make sense?

The pied goes to auction and the proceeds go to USARK.
-The community benefits.

Mr Kaufman refunds $1545 minus the price the pied sells for.
-Kaufman will not have to worry about the pied being sold for less than it's worth, won't have to pay the full refund, and won't have to deal with quarantine, maintenance costs, shipping costs, or having to market the animal.

Mr Foster can either let the animal go, or if he intends to keep it he can bid along with everyone else.
-This would not be fair in all cases; it may work here being that Randy is already generously offering to have the majority of the refund (either the full amount or the refund minus the pied he would have kept) go to the community.
-Randy still has the option to keep the pied or let it go, and he'd only be bidding an amount he feels the animal is worth, rather than the original $1545.
-There's no reason for resentment from Mr Kaufman, as Randy will have paid a fair price to keep the pied (which would be subtracted from the refund Mr Kaufman would have to pay), and Randy would not be getting the pied "for free" (from the perspective of Mr Kaufman being out $1545 and Randy having +1 pied, even though it isn't the snake he actually wanted. I do recognize there are also costs associated with keeping the animal for two years and losing an unknown potential amount of money from the missing gene, but we can't fairly calculate that).

The money (let's say $1000) can either be kept by Mr Foster or donated as well if he chooses.
-This is Mr Foster's choice, as he will potentially have lost the pied in the bid. Yes, that means he will be out ~$500, but again, this scenario is only being mentioned because he already offered a solution where he stood to lose a lot more. At least he will not have lost all $1545, and we could even argue that the ~$500 comes out in the wash since he had agency to sell ~16 hatchlings, regardless of their genes. 10 single gene hatchlings could easily have made that money back IF Randy sold them at market value (giving them away is Randy's prerogative, so it shouldn't be an argument for lowering the value of the hatchlings he had. Another consideration could be the value of his generosity; if he gave away a het. pied and that in turn made a customer loyal to him, he will eventually prosper from a free hatchling anyway).

...

So to recap on benefits/checks and balances:

Mr Kaufman pays less than the full refund, and there's less hassle over receiving the animal back. The price of the pied may even go above market value as people will know the money is going to a good cause, and there is less of a chance of people bidding low or not participating to take a stance for or against the parties involved.

Mr Foster has a choice to keep or donate the partial refund, and has a choice to keep both the pied or let the pied go and keep or donate the partial refund. A partial refund should still be about fair to him anyway since he did have opportunity to profit from breeding the pied.

If Randy wins the auction and keeps the pied, the pied doesn't suffer any hardships. If someone else wins the pied, the pied is only shipped once rather than going to Mr Kaufman and then being sold again.


Worst case scenario:

The pied is sold for more than $1545. It all goes to USARK. Mr Kaufman is out no money, though he should at least get a bit of credit for following through on a solution all parties feel is fair (if all agree), regardless of the auction outcome. Randy would not get the refund or the pied (assuming someone outbid him). Randy, would you agree to this solution knowing that is a risk? You'd at least have the option to not further raise the price by continuing to bid, and USARK would be the true winner of the scenario, not Mr Kaufman.

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

This has become more about the display than an equitable resolution

I agree. A gimme fest.

Seller gets snake back. Buyer gets refund. Seller if he has some snap will offer an additional something to make up for the hassle.
Seller can go to HIS supplier to get some of that 'extra'.

Randy, would you agree to this solution knowing that is a risk? You'd at least have the option to not further raise the price by continuing to bid, and USARK would be the true winner of the scenario, not Mr Kaufman.[/quote]

Point is moot unless Dave wakes up and actually participates in the discussion, which at this point he has showed zero interest in doing. But he has succeeded in proving that he cares more about money than his reputation.

Honestly, the above made my head hurt.

Let me state a few things.

1.) Donating to USARK and Fauna Forums is a very noble idea. But it requires trading/selling/auctioning a living animal because two grown men can not act their age.

2.) You have to do a deal that is fair. Mr. Kaufman in your idea walks away owning nothing regardless of what happens. He actually appears to have ripped someone off, and your answer is to say "oh well, lets auction the animal off and have fun." I don't understand that.

3.) There is a whole list of if's/and's/but's that happen. If the animal is sold, if the animal is not lost in the mail, if the animal survives, if the animal is what it is. The reason that I first offered to let Mr Foster keep the python in question was to avoid the ifs.

4.) I honestly don't know who would touch the python with a ten foot pole. It will sell for more then it is worth and you can not even pin down the genetics or breeder of the thing.

5.)If you get a person that buys the animal, it drops a magical unicorn python, they contact Mr. Foster to see the genetics, what is he going to say. It was from Mr Kaufman that got it from a friend...

6.) This is the most important point. Mr. Kaufman could agree with your gamble, if it works out then great. If the animal does not sell, he still stone walls Mr Foster.


It is a no win, no win, no win. Mr Kaufman does not have to man up and pay his debts. Mr Foster has to deal with a new customer. And the poor snake gets bounced around the country because someone possibly lied.

There is honestly 3 outcomes.

1.) Mr. Kaufman refunds the 1,545 dollars to Mr Foster, Mr. Foster keeps the python.
2.) Mr. Kaufman refunds the 1,545 plus shipping and insurance, Mr Foster returns the python.
3.) Mr. Kaufman refunds the 1,545 minus the market value of the python, Mr
Foster keeps the python.

If Mr Foster donates the money to whom ever, it is not our place to judge.

Mr Kaufman refuses to even admit he screw up.

I do like that Ms Opalack bounced ideas off the wall. But this one is really a no go. It just makes a complex problem or complex.

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

From the distorted analogies you concocted, I can see that you do not see my point. This has become more about the display than an equitable resolution, it seems, so I have no business burning time to contribute to an illogical spectacle.

Good luck to all in reaching a fair re-balancing.

Just to clarify, I do totally get your point (or at least I think I do). There is a value (to some) to the offspring produced and I was leaving that out of my equation. The problem is we're assigning a monetary value to something that doesn't have a "blue book" value that can be fairly evaluated. Snakes reproduce in the wild all the time (for free!), that doesn't mean that they are worth nothing. In this case Randy gave the snakes away so in this particular case they were an expense rather than a benefit. Yes, that was Randy's choice to do so... but it's not exactly black and white.

I agree demanding something for nothing is wrong, in this particular case I'd say the time delay in getting the issue rectified is what pushes me more towards there being no "win" for Randy yet and him being owed more than a straight return.

Just in case I came off wrong I wanted to assure you I'm not trying to argue with you (in case internet text comes off with a tone, I assure you none is intended), I just wanted to clarify in case I was coming off as saying "The seller was bad so give the buyer the moon!". I like hearing all sides, that's why I like this forum so much. It's great to get another perspective, it's a great educational tool to learn from without having to get into the situation yourself and I appreciate all opinions, even those that differ from my own .

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

This has become more about the display than an equitable resolution, it seems,

Originally Posted by Lucille

I agree. A gimme fest.

Seller gets snake back. Buyer gets refund. Seller if he has some snap will offer an additional something to make up for the hassle.
Seller can go to HIS supplier to get some of that 'extra'.

I agree with both of you.
There is something so simple, and level headed, for a proper resolution.
This thread started out okay but then ....

....

Originally Posted by CwnAnnwn

Honestly, the above made my head hurt.

2.) You have to do a deal that is fair. Mr. Kaufman in your idea walks away owning nothing regardless of what happens. He actually appears to have ripped someone off, and your answer is to say "oh well, lets auction the animal off and have fun." I don't understand that.

The context around my idea was based on finding compromise between Randy's latest proposed solution and the resulting differences of opinion about him keeping vs. returning the pied while Mr Kaufman would pay the full $1545. The proposal was specific to this particular case since pieces of it had already been mentioned and agreeable to some parties. I hope you don't have the impression that I mentioned it to make this entertaining - it really was about finding something everyone could agree to, and bettering the community along the way. This is absolutely serious and how this case is decided sets a precedent for similar situations in the future. We are, in essence, building our own laws and standards of conduct.

(Did you mean to say "owning" or "owing?" I'm assuming you meant owing - otherwise forget this paragraph might not make sense.) I am not in support of Mr Kaufman's handling of this situation. In my proposal, he would pay part of the refund - essentially covering the cost of the price difference between a pied and a leopard pied. Again, this is a compromise in the context of the solutions already proposed within this thread for this specific case (previously Randy offered to be paid back whatever the difference was after he sold the pied himself, IIRC). The only scenario in which Mr Kaufman would be "let off easy" would be if two people (since it's an auction) were kind/crazy enough to pay $1545 + for a pied that is being sold as a straight pied - and presumably proven to be what it is by Randy's clutches. Otherwise he will have reimbursed Randy for a gene he guaranteed that wasn't there, and he would then be free to settle that with the breeder of the pied on his own time.

I do understand your point about there being concerns about the origin of the pied; when I was putting the idea together I assumed people would be fully informed via this thread and bid to do some good for the community. Honestly, if it came to be, I'd make a bid (not for $1500 though!) since I know the pied has been in Randy's possession for a while and I trust it would be healthy and well cared for. I had also assumed that it is much more likely that people would want to pay slightly less or equal to market value for the pied, which would definitely make the outcome more balanced.

Being that Mr Kaufman feels (regardless of whether or not he is justified) like he isn't responsible for the refund, I had hoped that this solution would be more appealing to him than one that Randy proposes, perhaps due to pride or defensiveness. He may have been more willing to "play ball" if there was some benefit to himself to do so. Should that be necessary? No, absolutely not. In an ideal world, people own up to their mistakes plus some. But in an imperfect world, sometimes throwing a bone is more productive than standing by ideal principles. Like I said - it was just an idea.

I do appreciate all of your points and they are good ones. It's true that at the end of the day, this is all pointless if Mr Kaufman refuses to do anything at all, and that's a real shame. My proposal would only have had merit if it was the one solution Mr Kaufman agreed to; otherwise you are correct that it is just a more complicated situation for all.

Thank you for your feedback! I hope my response doesn't cause you any further pain!