Jenn Black/Shaky Tail Exotics : Breach of Terms of Services/Fradulent Chargebacks

Margaret, the New Caledonia gecko community is fairly split on the issue of bugs and powdered/fruit diet. While I can respect the terms of service are there to protect you and make the buyer aware of what you intend to do and how you intend to do it, if the buyer doesn't want your animals anymore after learning you do not use bug feeders (something that is significant, by your own admission, affecting growth rate, development, etc.), why would you think that giving her 'store credit' would be an amicable solution? If this is merely your solution to holding a gecko that you could have otherwise sold months ago - fine, just admit it. But saying that you'll give her store credit in lieu of a refund doesn't really satisfy someone who is simply no longer interested in your animals based on the way you raise them (I am not criticizing your methods; I will do that in the next paragraph).

I realize that you do not think the diet is all that pertinent to the argument, but I disagree. Given that Jenn is in the same line of business as you (breeding and acquiring geckos to perpetuate stock), it would make sense that if she doesn't find something to up-to-snuff for her breeding efforts, she would be unsatisfied. I'll reference a quote from de Vosjoli's book on page 39, "De Vosjoli and Fast offer live crickets of the appropriate size...once a week to all their Rhacodactylus, as many as they will eat in one feeding. Some of the commercial breeders we interviewed offer live insects twice a week...and feed them pureed fruit only once a week. Some claim they get better breeding results with a greater amount of insects."

Now, while I'm not experienced enough to say one way is better than the other (I myself have a few Rhacodactylus for a few years now...), it's important to note that there is a line of thinking, going back to the original guys (the authors of that now old book), that bug or animal protein is crucial to raising healthy animals, or at least affects rates of growth, viability, and any number of a dozen other variables. If your buyer isn't into your animals because of their diet, she's not going to be exercising the right to her 'store credit', ergo that's worthless to her.

I'm not denying your animals appear healthy and will grow to a normal 30-50g after a few years, but the diet thing is a little more important than I feel you're giving credit for. I also don't deny that some of the information in that book I referenced is dated. It (the diet) should also probably be a little more noticeable on your page for future reference, if it isn't already to avoid this again. I think a refund should have been in order regardless of your ToS. Just because you wrote, "I don't do refunds", doesn't mean you can't, or shouldn't.

I have mixed feelings here; on the one hand discovering husbandry information one doesn't agree with (even if it's hotly debated) is a big deal to someone who's breeding. It isn't the same situation as someone who simply decided they no longer wanted an animal and would rather have their cash. Yet at the same time I feel it is the customer's job to read the TOS thoroughly and if they are not something the customer agrees with in a worst case scenario then that person should not buy from that particular breeder. The "store credit" portion of a TOS is likely there to protect a breeder from someone who may arbitrarily demand hundreds of dollars back months after purchase when the breeder must still feed animals, pay bills, etc. Why did the customer assume husbandry practices rather than ask? Reptile husbandry is hardly set in stone and with "younger" species in the hobby the level of debate on care is impressive. I don't see any attempt at deceit regarding how the animals are raised, their condition, etc.

I think agreeing to a partial cash refund would be fair just to resolve this specific issue; the customer would get some money back but the breeder would also be compensated for holding those geckos out of inventory for 6 months.

Maybe in the future there needs to be a nonrefundable deposit portion, followed by a refund schedule that shrinks over large periods of time. Full refund minus the deposit within 2-3 months, but after that the refundable portion shrinks with time. I mean six months is a REALLY long time between purchase and dispute. Sometimes life sucks and we find out things late, but I think some proactivity on the part of the customer would have helped here.

Life is too short. It is a small amount of money. Might be best to just refund and move forward. Not worth the drama.

Originally Posted by LittleGrayTiger

I think agreeing to a partial cash refund would be fair just to resolve this specific issue; the customer would get some money back but the breeder would also be compensated for holding those geckos out of inventory for 6 months.

That does seem fair to me as well. However, as it is, the TOS did state that there would be none. When you're in a business of any kind, there's an old saying that "the customer is always right", but in certain cases that's not true. I read over the messages that were exchanged between Margaret and Jenn and it strikes me as odd that she (Jenn) would wait so long for a refund. Even if one was offered in the TOS, wouldn't it still seem strange for someone to suddenly back out after so long?

This however:

Originally Posted by LittleGrayTiger

I think some proactivity on the part of the customer would have helped here.

sums this up perfectly. It's the buyer's responsibility to make sure that this is indeed what they want before they commit to something such as purchasing an animal of any kind. She had the choice before she submitted payment to back out then and there, but she didn't.

Originally Posted by TheLittleHeathen

When you're in a business of any kind, there's an old saying that "the customer is always right", but in certain cases that's not true.

Actually in a great many cases it's not only not true, more and more sellers are firing customers as some just aren't worth the effort; the seller knows they make more money with less hassle from other buyers.

Originally Posted by bcr229

Actually in a great many cases it's not only not true, more and more sellers are firing customers as some just aren't worth the effort; the seller knows they make more money with less hassle from other buyers.

Some even go the extreme route and quit all together. It's not easy running a business, that's for sure. It's all a learning experience.

If the buyer became aware of feeding habits that made her no longer want to do business with you, I don't think that the terms of service are relevant. She did not change her mind or have buyer's remorse, but rather was not given the full story before purchase.

I recently filed a chargeback against someone (first and hopefully last time I've ever done it) because the owner was unbelievably rude. I asked for a refund and was told that their terms of service stated store credit only, no refunds. I told them that their TOS dont apply to a case where someone simply does not want to do business with them any longer and got my refund through PayPal.

If she realized after the fact that you were feeding them in a controversial and unsatisfactory manner, your TOS are moot. Just send a refund.

What's really annoying to me about this is that just a few months ago, everyone was jumping down Underground Reptiles throat because of their terms of service which state that refunds will only be given as store credit. Now we see the EXACT same terms of service and everyone thinks that it's perfectly acceptable. I just don't get it.

My thought is, as a business owner, that I will do whatever I can to make the customer happy as long as they are being reasonable. If they were contacting me with serious claims (DOA, sick, etc) I would ask for proof, but if they're not happy and nothing has been sent I will give them a refund.

It would be different if she just changed her mind or was stringing you along, but that doesn't seem to be the case in any form. As far as I'm concerned, if the buyer is being completely reasonable and you are refusing to give them a refund, and even going so far as to post a bad guy thread about them on the BOI, YOU are the bad guy and should be avoided. As many others have said, it's not how you handle the good transactions, it's how you handle the bad. You seem like the bad guy to me.

Originally Posted by MCMB-2

What's really annoying to me about this is that just a few months ago, everyone was jumping down Underground Reptiles throat because of their terms of service which state that refunds will only be given as store credit. Now we see the EXACT same terms of service and everyone thinks that it's perfectly acceptable. I just don't get it.

While you're indeed entitled to your opinion, I really don't see how UR has anything to do with this. On a side note, I've just recently had a great experience with UR and would recommend them to everyone. But that's a whole other can of worms.

Back to the current topic, the way I see it is going back to what I said before: the buyer had the opportunity to not buy at all. If she didn't feel comfortable with purchasing from Margaret, she could have backed off and found a different breeder. Plain and simple.

I wasn't around for the Underground Reptiles thing (Never bought from them and don't look at their stock), but I do have to say that Nick is on to something.

I'm doing some digging with legal stuff and Terms of Service seem to apply only if a service is being provided; if someone no longer abides by the terms of service then that service is terminated. At which point a business couldn't enforce the "store credit only" idea. I don't think. So if someone wanted a refund, but did not want to stop doing business with The Harlequin Hoard (Maybe future purchases?), they would have to abide by the TOS that states store credit refunds only. However if they no longer wish to do business period with The Harlequin Hoard then the TOS doesn't apply and a refund should probably issued. The Harlequin Hoard would then have the right to refuse business in the future from that person.

That said refusing business over an innocent but legitimate issue may be reputation damaging, at which point keeping the money may not be worth it for The Harlequin Hoard even if the TOS applies. Which I'm not certain one way or the other if it should in this case.

Maybe in the future there should be an "out" in the TOS contract to provide a complete refund under a small set of circumstances these situations can fall under? Then the business owner can make case-by-case decisions on whether to enforce their TOS or make an exception.

(Disclaimer: if someone more knowledgeable than me regarding contracts can chime in or correct, please do. What's legally binding and what's considered a legitimate contract don't seem easily defined.)