Sellers Beware of John Franco!

Originally Posted by MCMB-2

Even in the money is all sent at once I completely agree with this. Part of the payment is always considered non-refundable in the case of buyer's remorse or some other unforeseen circumstance, just to prevent seller's from wasting their time and holding an animal for nothing. In this case however I don't think a deposit applies, the animal was misrepresented in my opinion.

I disagree based on the ad. However, during the discussion, clarity through repetition would have helped both parties out (a lot).

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

However, during the discussion, clarity through repetition would have helped both parties out (a lot).

I completely agree, that's why I say it's my opinion that it was misrepresented. It was undoubtedly in the ad but I really try to make things like that as overt as possible.

I personally make a completely separate paragraph in cases like this to stress the fact that I can't guarantee the sex but am very confident, and reinstate that fact if anyone inquires about them. If that had happened I think we both agree that this situation would probably not even have occurred.

But that being the case, that the certainty of the sex of the animal WASN'T stressed, I think it's best to just chalk up the deposit and be more obvious next time. I just wouldn't want to deal with the headache if it were me.

Originally Posted by MCMB-2

I completely agree, that's why I say it's my opinion that it was misrepresented. It was undoubtedly in the ad but I really try to make things like that as overt as possible.

I personally make a completely separate paragraph in cases like this to stress the fact that I can't guarantee the sex but am very confident, and reinstate that fact if anyone inquires about them. If that had happened I think we both agree that this situation would probably not even have occurred.

I think misrepresentation is too strong a claim here thanks to the ad. Further, unless it is actually a male, either possible female or outright female is technically correct, but the latter has not been determined yet (and so should not be stated because its correctness is currently unknown) and the former was stated in the beginning via the ad. I suspect the buyer overlooked it in excitement.

The conversation was highly suggestive with the usage of feminine descriptors up to the point of dispute, however, and that is why I added my little bit in post number six. A similar approach to one you might take for security and clarity. A few words here and there to hopefully save some stess.

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

I think misrepresentation is too strong a claim here thanks to the ad. I suspect the buyer overlooked it in excitement.

You're right, I'm being a little abrupt, I think I'm using it in place of a better word that is currently escaping me. Technically the seller has every right to keep the deposit, I think in this instance it might be easier to say that maybe there was a misunderstanding and move on with a refund though.

As previously mentioned, I also think that refunding is on the wiser side of right and wrong when it comes to this situation.

I'm just never a fan of the idea of leaving someone with absolutely nothing to show for their money. If the seller is so eager to hide behind TOS, I suppose she can keep the deposit. Should she? I can't really think of many situations where I'd answer 'yes' to that question. I couldn't see myself wanting to be that vengeful toward a buyer that wasn't attempting some sort of outright fraud.

The more I see such situations, the more ambivalent I become about the whole idea of TOS that a seller would use to justify keeping someone's money. Some people seem to want so badly to play at being professionals - not that professionalism is a bad thing - and completely forget about simple right and wrong. In my eyes, taking any amount of money for a product that wasn't sent is just not right.

Countless people waste any given seller's time with questions and picture requests that ultimately lead to nothing, yet those who are at least serious enough to send money are the only ones who get punished in any tangible way. Something about the whole idea just seems ass-backwards to me.

Opportunity cost is very real, but it is also very difficult to judge in some contexts.

There are also some people who think sellers are mini-banks of no consequence.

Those factors (and others like time, which also may have a cost) tend to drive the idea of the nonrefundable deposit.

I have never personally kept a deposit for a reneged deal despite having it in my terms, but instead chose to "implement consequence" via other means. Typically by denying future business and/or allowing my network to learn of the person and context. Plenty of people do not get what they want in the future because they have played games with sellers in the past.

Originally Posted by Fangthane

I'm just never a fan of the idea of leaving someone with absolutely nothing to show for their money. If the seller is so eager to hide behind TOS, I suppose she can keep the deposit. Should she? I can't really think of many situations where I'd answer 'yes' to that question. I couldn't see myself wanting to be that vengeful toward a buyer that wasn't attempting some sort of outright fraud.

The more I see such situations, the more ambivalent I become about the whole idea of TOS that a seller would use to justify keeping someone's money. Some people seem to want so badly to play at being professionals - not that professionalism is a bad thing - and completely forget about simple right and wrong. In my eyes, taking any amount of money for a product that wasn't sent is just not right.

Countless people waste any given seller's time with questions and picture requests that ultimately lead to nothing, yet those who are at least serious enough to send money are the only ones who get punished in any tangible way. Something about the whole idea just seems ass-backwards to me.

Each situation is different. In this case, I would refund the full amount and be done with it because it isn't totally the buyers fault. Even though the ad said poss female, the seller refers to it as female often.

But as for non refundable deposits. I've had one person who had animals on a payment plan. They stretched them out for over a year before I finally said enough (wasn't making payments when he said and had issues setting up shipping). I refunded everything except the deposit. I would have easily sold those animals I was feeding for a year. Recently I had someone cancel a sale after a couple weeks. I did refund the deposit on that one. If it's short term, I review it on a case by case basis, but a seller shouldn't be out sales for a buyer who changes their mind.

Again, OP, I would just refund the money. It will make you look better in the eyes of other potential buyers. You used the word "she" enough to make it sound like it was definitely female. When I'm selling a tsf, I usually say "she" in quotes or "she?" with the question mark to avoid confusion (along with the ad that states tsf and possible female).

Pfft..these sellers that treat their TOS like it's upper management and then pretend they're just some powerless employee, give me a break. Hope the buyer gets back every penny.