Legal battle hindering sale- Lea Hurst and Nikki Pardalis

Originally Posted by gila7150

I didn't say that Nikki was legally required to do anything. When you choose to keep and breed reptiles with someone of questionable character people will naturally associate you with that person. Nikki has the opportunity to be the better person and extricate Brittany from her personal drama. I doubt that most people who read this thread would be willing to purchase anything from Lea or Nikki if this isn't resolved. Maybe it's not fair but that's reality.

It's also not clear that Lea did not have any ownership of these geckos since Nikki claimed that she "abandoned" them with her when she moved out. Lea was willing to ship the gecko on June 26 while she was still living there and Brittany is the one who requested the shipping delay.

When small scale reptile breeders allow their personal lives, financial situations and other B.S. to affect their customers it makes potential buyers reluctant to deal with anyone who is not a well known and established breeder...and that's a shame.

Beyond legality, there is no obligation to give up one's own gecko for another person's as-of-this-moment scam/theft. That is just as much reality. If you and I hold hands tenderly with longstanding gazes poets write about, that does not mean you have to give up your animal because I took money for something I do not have and cannot deliver.

Brittany's transaction was with Lea. Not with Nikki. Lea owes Brittany a full refund.

Originally Posted by Sinofmen

Well Pogaf, I tried. I really hate to see you get screwed out of your money like you have. It's pretty obvious by Lea and Nikki's responses to the situation though, that you will likely never see a dime of it or the gecko. At the very least I expected the community to support the shipping of the gecko to you, since it's obvious Nikki has it in her possession. My opinion is no better or worst then everyone else's, it's just a opinion.

Nikki, I hope you at some point realize what would be the morally right thing to do, regardless of what you are obligated to do and not obligated to do by law.

Lea, shame on you for scamming this person, just because you had a bad breakup.

To all others, I just felt really bad for the opinion and expected someone to step up and accept responsibility for the buyers loss. At the very least, I learned of a few more people on Fauna that only hold to legal obligations regardless of moral responsibility. Thank you for that.

I think your heart is thrusting in a positive manner, but that there is also much place in the discussion for logic. That logic, for me, is that I do not advocate robbing a third party to pay a robbed first party. That is the moral responsibility I feel I have as a free-thinking advocate. Right the wrong. Not enact another wrong.

Beyond legality, there is no obligation to give up one's own gecko for another person's as-of-this-moment scam/theft.

I find it interesting how Nikki's accusations are accepted as fact without any evidence.
The only person who has offered any proof of anything is Brittany.
As a "free thinking" person I find it unlikely that Lea was selling Nikki's reptiles without her knowledge on a website that Nikki visits while they were still living together.
I also find it unlikely that Lea would be willing to ship the gecko back in June while she was still living with Nikki if she didn't have her permission to sell it.

As a "free thinking person" I believe they were keeping and selling reptiles together. A bad break-up occurred. Lea left with the money and left the gecko with Nikki. Now they are using the unresolved matter to hurt each other while an innocent person is held hostage by their nonsense.

If I break up with a girlfriend and she moves out I wouldn't say that she abandoned my dogs with me.

Originally Posted by gila7150

I find it interesting how Nikki's accusations are accepted as fact without any evidence.
The only person who has offered any proof of anything is Brittany.
As a "free thinking" person I find it unlikely that Lea was selling Nikki's reptiles without her knowledge on a website that Nikki visits while they were still living together.
I also find it unlikely that Lea would be willing to ship the gecko back in June while she was still living with Nikki if she didn't have her permission to sell it.

As a "free thinking person" I believe they were keeping and selling reptiles together. A bad break-up occurred. Lea left with the money and left the gecko with Nikki. Now they are using the unresolved matter to hurt each other while an innocent person is held hostage by their nonsense.

If I break up with a girlfriend and she moves out I wouldn't say that she abandoned my dogs with me.

Even with those beliefs, the transaction was still between Brittany and Lea, so Lea owes Brittany.

Nikki stated "I never gave her permission to sell MY animals". Then she states "she abandoned those animals with me". That's a pretty bltant contradiction. Just sayin'.

Regardless, Lea owes her a refund.

Complicated.

For the most part I would agree with Lucille and Nickolas if the Gecko was sold without permission and knowledge by Nikki and it was fact that they were only Nikki's animals that she shouldn't be guilted into giving away her property.

On the other hand, I agree with Juaneta and Chris that those facts might not be established.

Particularly after reading the contradictory points in Nikki's emails.

Here are a few

Her reply:
Nikki Pardalis <nakedmolecat@gmail.com>
Sun 8/10/2014 4:33 PM
To: Freeman, Brittany;

I never gave her permission to sell my animals; she did that behind my back and never told me that they sold when she advertised them. I'm really sorry you are having this experience and I encourage you to make a BOI thread and email a link to it. I would be willing to give you first refusal on Fangorn at a discounted price when this is all settled but I am currently in a legal battle with Lea over many things including ownership of the geckos so please understand that I am not able to ship them, even if I wanted to. I had no agreement with her lawyer, by the way.

She abandoned those animals with me and told me to keep them because she no longer wanted them and "they didn't sell" and I had been arguing that they were rightfully mine the whole time anyway as I paid for them, chose pairings, paid for their food, cleaned their cages, and generally cared for them. When you emailed me asking for them to be shipped, I knew right away that this was just another way for her to spite me during a messy breakup where I had to go to the extreme of a restraining order to protect myself.

She states that they were hers from the beginning. She states she didn't have permission to sell them.

She then goes on to state that she abandoned them with her because she told her they didn't sell.

She then concludes with, she is now arguing they were hers to begin with because she was actually the one who purchased them in the relationship and paid for the upkeep.

Personally, I am more inline Juaneta and Chris on these points.

Originally Posted by gila7150

As a "free thinking person" I believe they were keeping and selling reptiles together. A bad break-up occurred. Lea left with the money and left the gecko with Nikki. Now they are using the unresolved matter to hurt each other while an innocent person is held hostage by their nonsense.

However,

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

Even with those beliefs, the transaction was still between Brittany and Lea, so Lea owes Brittany.

I think that is the salient point.

To the OP,

I'll attach a couple pictures of the original ad below.

One more thing.

Same animals in those ads were offered for sale back in February. I find it very hard to believe. I find it very hard to believe that they had been offering those animals for sale all year in different ads and now all of sudden they were never Lea's animals to sell and she never had permission.

But, I regress back to to the bottom-line point. Lea is responsible. She took the funds.

Originally Posted by gila7150

I find it interesting how Nikki's accusations are accepted as fact without any evidence.
The only person who has offered any proof of anything is Brittany.
As a "free thinking" person I find it unlikely that Lea was selling Nikki's reptiles without her knowledge on a website that Nikki visits while they were still living together.
I also find it unlikely that Lea would be willing to ship the gecko back in June while she was still living with Nikki if she didn't have her permission to sell it.

As a "free thinking person" I believe they were keeping and selling reptiles together. A bad break-up occurred. Lea left with the money and left the gecko with Nikki. Now they are using the unresolved matter to hurt each other while an innocent person is held hostage by their nonsense.

If I break up with a girlfriend and she moves out I wouldn't say that she abandoned my dogs with me.

This is what I have been saying since the beginning. They were living together and conducting business together when the money was sent.

Nikki states she has the gecko in her possession now but won't ship it to the buyer. The buyer even offered to send more money to pay for the shipping, yet Nikki still refuses to ship the gecko to the buyer. Instead she wants the buyer to file complaints through paypal and her bank to further fuel the fire of tension between the two.

Bad business ethics on Nikki's part however you choose to twist it.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

To the OP,

I'll attach a couple pictures of the original ad below.

One more thing.

Same animals in those ads were offered for sale back in February. I find it very hard to believe. I find it very hard to believe that they had been offering those animals for sale all year in different ads and now all of sudden they were never Lea's animals to sell and she never had permission.

But, I regress back to to the bottom-line point. Lea is responsible. She took the funds.

Thank you very much for pulling those images Dennis, I appreciate it!

And yes, I agree very much with this. It would seem that if animals were being shipped and thus being removed from the collection that the person taking care of them, Nikki, per her claim, would have noticed. If the animals being sold were an issue, it would have arisen far before this.


The original listing does state that she has a 50% non-refundable deposit policy. My only question is, because she essentially terminated the transaction, is that still to be upheld? It would seem unfair for a seller to have that policy so they could cancel a transaction at any time and know they could keep half the funds. I always felt those were if the buyer backed out, which I don't feel like I am doing, despite having requested a refund.

Brittany, you may want to consider sending Lea's boss a link to this thread.
http://house-of-reptiles.com/meet-staff
He may be interested to know how trustworthy his employees are. Especially since her reputation in the reptile community could negatively affect his business.