Legal battle hindering sale- Lea Hurst and Nikki Pardalis

Originally Posted by Peaceofgecko

That is outrageous. Even if the ownership was in question if both consent to sending you the gecko it wouldn't matter. IMO both are equally guilty of completely scamming you and that's very sad.

Re-Read the OP. Nikki says in the first email that Lea has no right to sell the geckos and was unaware of the sale. So there isn't any agreement in selling the geckos as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by Lucille

Something rubs me the wrong way about Lea advertising these critters, knowing they had to be held, and then notifying her buyer right after the Paypal deadline passed.

The seller was in Oregon, the buyer in Arizona. The buyer was the one who initially requested the delay in shipping due to the heat, which is perfectly reasonable. If the buyer had been in an area of the country with more moderate temperatures, the seller could have shipped immediately.

The timeline may or may not be an issue, to me it depends on when the fecal matter finally hit the air-mover in this relationship and the restraining orders got filed. My guess is that it's just bad luck that things came to a head for the OP when they did.

Either way, whatever their personal problems, Lea and Nikki need to figure out what they're going to do to resolve this issue for the OP if they expect to make sales in the future.

I think Nikki and Lea are the same person. The story feels to made up for me, it all seems to convenient.

Any time I hear Lawyer involved, 9 out of 10 times it's all smoke screen to cover the bs.

I've seen to many sad stories that are meant to tug on peoples emotions created by scammers.... Brittany Freeman, I bet you this was planned from the get go!

Originally Posted by SofaKing

I think Nikki and Lea are the same person. The story feels to made up for me, it all seems to convenient.

Any time I hear Lawyer involved, 9 out of 10 times it's all smoke screen to cover the bs.

I've seen to many sad stories that are meant to tug on peoples emotions created by scammers.... Brittany Freeman, I bet you this was planned from the get go!

They aren't. I know (and have known) them separately for quite a while. The lawyer thing is a legitimate issue due to some personal aspects Nikki may or may not want to get into in here.

Mods are perfectly welcome to double-check my ip against Nikki and Lea's ip(s). I'm not in any relation to this deal or the outcome, I'm just aware of this thread and the situation. I know them both and they are separate people who are no longer living together.

Originally Posted by bcr229

The timeline may or may not be an issue, to me it depends on when the fecal matter finally hit the air-mover in this relationship and the restraining orders got filed. My guess is that it's just bad luck that things came to a head for the OP when they did.

It's mostly this.

So they were in on the scam together.....


It's all to convenient, definitely a classic scam!

This does not require great depth of examination. A person received money from a buyer in exchange for an animal and its delivery. The person who received money has failed to deliver said animal. Whether there are interpersonal issues leading to this or other reasons does not really factor in as it pertains to the debt to the buyer. If the animal is not going to be delivered in a reasonably safe and timely manner, the money needs to be refunded. The person who owes the buyer is the person who was paid by the buyer. The recipient of funds has not been absolved of her obligation to the sender of funds regardless of who is the possessor of the animal at this point.

Originally Posted by bcr229

The seller was in Oregon, the buyer in Arizona. The buyer was the one who initially requested the delay in shipping due to the heat, which is perfectly reasonable. If the buyer had been in an area of the country with more moderate temperatures, the seller could have shipped immediately.

The ad itself, prior to the buyer request, refers to a shipping delay " ALL GECKOS WILL BE SHIPPED WHEN COOLER WEATHER ARRIVES. "
It seems so convenient that the notification was just after the Paypal deadline.

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

This does not require great depth of examination. A person received money from a buyer in exchange for an animal and its delivery. The person who received money has failed to deliver said animal. Whether there are interpersonal issues leading to this or other reasons does not really factor in as it pertains to the debt to the buyer. If the animal is not going to be delivered in a reasonably safe and timely manner, the money needs to be refunded. The person who owes the buyer is the person who was paid by the buyer. The recipient of funds has not been absolved of her obligation to the sender of funds regardless of who is the possessor of the animal at this point.

I agree. But for those doing future business of any kind with Lea, the difficulties with the transaction in my opinion appear intentional, with the buyer conveniently notified just after the Paypal deadline, and Lea saying that she could not offer refunds after 30 days.
If Lea has property issues with a former partner, that is her problem. She
cannot just pocket a customer's money and walk away, and worse, walk away just out of the reach of Paypal. To me that does not look like any accident.

It looks to me like Nikki should just send the gecko. They were obviously in the buisness of breeding and selling them together prior to their personal problems. Now that there is personal problems, Nikki don't want to send the gecko because of a legal disputes? What dispute? Lea clearly says that the buyer is entitled to the gecko. I see no dispute over who owns this gecko. Clearly the buyer owns the gecko and Nikki is the one causing a dispute between herself and the buyer.

Bad buisness practice on Nikki's part. I deffinetly won't EVER deal with Nikki considering she is keeping a gecko she knows for a FACT has already been paid for!