Ed Clark - Scammer, Liar, and Sells Sick Dragons

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

What I notice missing in any of the emails that she posted other than her "word" is these simple words..

"Ed, why do you want him back now, just because we broke up, you GAVE him to me, remember?"

If I have missed these words in any of the emails where Ed is demanding his animal back..forgive me.

True, emails do not show any such statement, but of course, both parties agree that the majority of their discussions have been via telephone as opposed to email... Perhaps the question was neglected due to redundancy... But who knows...
I do agree that one would expect to see such a statement in writing SOMEWHERE, but perhaps not.

I see this entire matter to be childish to be honest... No reason this all HAD to be dealt with here, especially considering that I highly doubt that any resolution will be reached regardless of perspective damage to reputations, and regardless of the suggestions of anyone here to either party involved.

Nicole, you admitted that you had a verbal contract with Ed regarding Prince. What I would suggest is that you either send PRince back to Ed, or, make a deal with Ed to purchase Prince. This way, you can wash your hands completely with Ed and move on. It IS the right thing to do

Off topic a little but not really:

I've posted quite a bit in the past in the Lonely Hearts forum. I think it is neat when two people in the reptile hobby are attracted to one another, because there are folks who don't care for reptiles, and when you find someone who shares your love for snakes/lizards etc. it can be nice.

Two hobbyists are entirely different than two business people in the same biz sometimes.

There is a reason that people say 'Don't mix business and pleasure'. It can be done if you are caring and careful, but there is always the possibility that 'happily ever after' won't happen. It isn't easy to entertain that idea in a newly blossoming relationship where stars are in your eyes and itches need to be scratched, but it's true.

If the chemistry calls out to you so strongly that the relationship is as irresistable as the sirens of ancient fable, try to keep a few unaffected synapses to make sure that property rights and business boundaries are clearly mapped out. If things never go south, you've been blessed, but if they do, you don't want to have to cope with a devastated business as well as a broken heart.

Originally Posted by StrictlyExotics

Nicole, you admitted that you had a verbal contract with Ed regarding Prince. What I would suggest is that you either send PRince back to Ed, or, make a deal with Ed to purchase Prince. This way, you can wash your hands completely with Ed and move on. It IS the right thing to do

Exactly Dean!..Send him the dragon and wash your hands of the whole mess.I'm sure Ed doesn't plan on keeping the dragon for himself he just wants him back out of spite.So he'll post him on here for 10 X what he's worth, get his $ $$,and walk away like he's won some major award...The important thing is he'll (hopefuly) walk away.

That's a small price to pay to get Ed out of your life.

Originally Posted by ReptileJay

True, emails do not show any such statement, but of course, both parties agree that the majority of their discussions have been via telephone as opposed to email... Perhaps the question was neglected due to redundancy... But who knows...
I do agree that one would expect to see such a statement in writing SOMEWHERE, but perhaps not.

I see this entire matter to be childish to be honest... No reason this all HAD to be dealt with here, especially considering that I highly doubt that any resolution will be reached regardless of perspective damage to reputations, and regardless of the suggestions of anyone here to either party involved.

You put up such a good argument for her side on what "could" have happened, that I just want to put a NAIL in her coffin! The most damning piece of evidence that was used was here http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=174807 Post 11:



Does this sound like someone that believes the dragon was a gift? It doesn't to me, but then I have a strange perception that seems to differ from most peoples.

Originally Posted by deborahbroadus

You put up such a good argument for her side on what "could" have happened, that I just want to put a NAIL in her coffin! The most damning piece of evidence that was used was here http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=174807 Post 11:



Does this sound like someone that believes the dragon was a gift? It doesn't to me, but then I have a strange perception that seems to differ from most peoples.

Granted, taken at face value, the answer to your question is a GLARING "NO". But, words spoken (or typed) in the heat of an argument can't ALWAYS be taken at face value.

I'm not by any means saying that Nicole is correct in this, nor that the dragon WAS in fact a gift, but just that the situation overall makes me feel that it could very well have been. To me, Ed's statement early on about "giving her the world", along with his statements about them being engaged force me to see it as a gift regardless of what may have been since (or prior for that matter) by either party...

Unfortunately, regardless of what is determined to be the truth in the matter, without hard evidence (which has yet to be shown [ie. Physical breeder loan contract signed by both parties, documentation showing that the dragon WAS in fact a gift, etc]), it will continue to be nothing more than a "he said/she said" battle between 2 individuals, neither of which have stellar reputations when it comes to 100% disclosure of facts.

Originally Posted by ReptileJay

Granted, taken at face value, the answer to your question is a GLARING "NO". But, words spoken (or typed) in the heat of an argument can't ALWAYS be taken at face value.

I'm not by any means saying that Nicole is correct in this, nor that the dragon WAS in fact a gift, but just that the situation overall makes me feel that it could very well have been. To me, Ed's statement early on about "giving her the world", along with his statements about them being engaged force me to see it as a gift regardless of what may have been since (or prior for that matter) by either party...

Unfortunately, regardless of what is determined to be the truth in the matter, without hard evidence (which has yet to be shown [ie. Physical breeder loan contract signed by both parties, documentation showing that the dragon WAS in fact a gift, etc]), it will continue to be nothing more than a "he said/she said" battle between 2 individuals, neither of which have stellar reputations when it comes to 100% disclosure of facts.

Jason, she herself admitted to having some sort of verbal contract though. A verbal contract is accountable in a cour of law. I, also, do understand your point of "Id give her the world" but not a bearded dragon phrase as well, however, that is not accountable in a court of law. The law would stipulate that she return the bearded to him because of the verbal contract that is now a known fact because she admitted to it.

Originally Posted by StrictlyExotics

Jason, she herself admitted to having some sort of verbal contract though. A verbal contract is accountable in a cour of law. I, also, do understand your point of "Id give her the world" but not a bearded dragon phrase as well, however, that is not accountable in a court of law. The law would stipulate that she return the bearded to him because of the verbal contract that is now a known fact because she admitted to it.

Very true Dean, a verbal contract is still a contract, however any verbal amendments to said contract which may have taken place over the course of their relationship would be equally as binding, would they not?

Originally Posted by StrictlyExotics

The law would stipulate that she return the bearded to him because of the verbal contract that is now a known fact because she admitted to it.

The problem with all this speculation is that we don't have enough facts. There is nothing to prevent someone from having title by contract and then subsequently making a gift. Did that happen? Who knows? With all the accusations flying around, there's not enough info to really know what happened.

Smells fishy to me.

It seems that the only way they can continue business as usual is if they "split up" and sell through the least damaged of the two. Amazing that they are still taking pot shots at Tom.