Quote:
Anyhow, I would not expect Mark to make any posts on here since everyone here has made their judgments up already
|
Jason, the man has a signed, dated breeding contract. Said breeding did not take place. It ain't rocket science to figure out who's right and who's wrong. Mark's probably not posting because it's clear he's wrong and he knows it.
Quote:
I don't know who is at fault, except that knowing Mark, I can say that if he had two of my boas in the middle of a breeding season and he ended up breeding them after striking out with the original plans I would not have a problem splitting the litter with him even if it was my snakes since he bred them, other wise I most likely loose a season with them.
|
The decision to breed Ray's animals together was NOT Mark's decision to make, not without consulting Ray FIRST. Perhaps he didn't do that because he didn't want to give Ray the opportunity to say no. Good grief, Ray is capable of breeding his own animals, you know ... and so does Mark.
Quote:
From reading this thread my only assumption is that the reason he took the snakes he took was because he probably felt that you would have given him far less since you two were not exactly on the best of terms after your recent phone conversations.
|
Is that your assumption or is that what he told you, Jason? My assumption is he took the snakes because he felt he was entitled to them due to the contract agreement, even though that portion of the contract was null and void when the stipulated breeding did not take place.
Quote:
If the court decides against Mark and he doesn't give the animals back then he can be charged with theft, until then. since he has had ownership since they were born and if he sells them before any judge makes a decision then they by law are his animals
|
Wrong! Mark did not then and does not now have "ownership". Mark was only granted a loan. He only has possession, not ownership. He did not have ownership of either parent animal before, during or after breeding. He did not and does not have ownership of any offspring of animals that do not belong to him, unless stipulated in the contract.
Had a successful breeding of Mark's male and Ray's female taken place, then Mark could have rightly claimed ownership of half the babies, since one parent animal did/does belong to him. But not in this case.
I am keeping my neighbor's purebred dogs for the summer .. an unaltered male and unspayed female they breed and show. We actually have a signed contract to protect both of us, since they're worth some bucks.
If she goes into heat, he inseminates her and she has pups before my neighbors return from Europe, do I get to keep half the pups because I have possession (or "ownership" as you see it) when they are born? I don't think so. And neither would my neighbors. And no, there is no such contingency in our contract, but hell, maybe I should just assume that I get half the pups if it happens in my care!
It was nice of you to come here on Mark's behalf, but Mark's silence already speaks volumes.