BHB reptiles "het" didn't prove out, won't fix it

Originally Posted by Focal X

No I'm not. Just because they are two different incidents doesn't mean you can throw the apples/oranges card. They both fall under this:



Either way, my point was... you can't speak for every judge.

Laws are laws.Judges can't make them up or change them to suit his or her needs or opinions. Your comparison of workers comp is not the same as a loss of profit on an investment. And animals are not manufactured goods so you can't proof what you could have made from them.

The only way you could sue is if there was fraud involved or theft.There clearly was not either in this circumstance.

I thought I read too that it was included in Chris Huffmans order to save on shipping. Not sure though... There's been a lot of misinterpretation in this thread.

Originally Posted by Focal X

I thought I read too that it was included in Chris Huffmans order to save on shipping. Not sure though... There's been a lot of misinterpretation in this thread.

It just seems a lot of people have skipped over a majority of what has been posted in the way of real information in favor of the back and forth arguments that add no real substance to the thread.

Hell we even still have people thinking the snake was only bred to 2 unproven females when it was already stated an uncountable number of times that at this point it has been bred to 2 unproven hets, 2 proven hets and another 1 that hasn't laid yet. But important information like that, or like the info in the post by Chris Huffman that has emails to back up the story seem of little importance to most.

Originally Posted by btmexotics

Laws are laws.Judges can't make them up or change them to suit his or her needs or opinions. Your comparison of workers comp is not the same as a loss of profit on an investment. And animals are not manufactured goods so you can't proof what you could have made from them.

The only way you could sue is if there was fraud involved or theft.There clearly was not either in this circumstance.

OK what law is it?

I'm not getting in a pissing match with you. I'm a prosecutor and work on stuff like this everyday. If you think you're right then...

Originally Posted by aleria

It just seems a lot of people have skipped over a majority of what has been posted in the way of real information in favor of the back and forth arguments that add no real substance to the thread.

Oh yeah! Without a doubt LOL.

Originally Posted by aleria

And in post #142 http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...&postcount=142

Chris posts a correction showing where he made Brian aware prior to purchase that the spider was not for him, but was being added to the order for the OP. So actually I do have my facts straight.

Yeah.I know about that.But looks like back peddling to me.Which is it?Do we belive David and his very first post or Chris?I mean David said word for word that he bought the (bhb produced)snake from Chris.He didn't say he went in on an order with Chris.Looks to me that the story got conveniently changed after people started to question the facts.

This whole fiasco is littered with holes ommissions and many other warning signs.No real proof of anything in this whole thread. Sometimes promises get broken.Most people learn this as children.Brian clearly thought he was getting the shaft here so he took back his offer.

From a legal standpoint this case would be found in Brians favor if he were the defendant.

Originally Posted by Focal X

OK what law is it?

I'm not getting in a @#!*% match with you. I'm a prosecutor and work on stuff like this everyday. If you think you're right then...

You are a prosecutor? Do you prosecute lawsuits? I was unaware you guys did that.I have never seen a prosecutor in a small claims court.

Reasonable doubt. Preponderance of the evidence.

Originally Posted by aleria

And again, it was shown that Brian was already well aware of the fact that in the original order that was placed for the spider that the spider was going to someone other than the person making the order and it was simply a combined order to save on shipping and other costs.

So the OP was the first buyer, plain and simple. And it was already stated that yes, he did sell the snake to someone else already, who he has been working with and will refund as soon as he receives some compensation from Brian, if not before then since that is his customer, not Brian's. Brian's responsibility is to the OP, not the current owner as the current owner, from what I've seen appears to be working with the OP on the issue.

Seeing a post by the current owner might help clear this up once and for all so there can be no more questions of who owes who. But either way, the OP was still the one that obtained the snake from Brian and Brian was made aware of that fact upon purchase. If we're going to say that in situations like this, the refunds have to go all the way down the line for everyone that ever owned the snake then can you imagine how complicated it would get?

OP is owner #1, current owner is #2, and the OP already stated he would be refunding/compensating the current owner as that is HIS customer, not Brian's. The OP is Brian's customer.

if the OP was just asking for compensation for just his customer this would be just fine, but he is asking for it for himself and his customer. BHB owes the owner of the snake, no one else.

If i sell someone a het snake and they then turn around and sell it to someone else before they prove it out, and the current owner contacts me saying it hasn't proved out, i would feel i owed the current owner, as the original owner has already made his money off the sale to the current owner. If the original owner feels he owes his customer something that is on him, as I guaranteed the snake to be het. and now that guarantee has passed on to its current owner.

Never seen a prosecutor in a civil lawsuit either.I have seen a plaintiffs lawyer and a defense lawer but never a prosecutor.

Originally Posted by btmexotics

You are a prosecutor? Do you prosecute lawsuits? I was unaware you guys did that.I have never seen a prosecutor in a small claims court.

Reasonable doubt. Preponderance of the evidence.

Yes. Because putting words in my mouth makes you're argument so much more valid. I know how the law works because it's my occupation which was what I was refering to. Coming in here and laying a verdict without even speaking to either party and using this thread as your "evidence" on who would win or lose in court looks silly.

This very well could have been a case of fraud (most likely not). But no one knows. Acting like you know all the facts when you don't is a waste of time.