Nicholas P. Heistan CNH Reptiles

It shouldn't matter if he was "out" or not. Those fees are fees that the seller eats when they do a transaction on Paypal. He should not have said that he's not paying the fees (which he did when he said, "Not 175 and I pay the fees too") If he was so worried about the fees, then he should have priced the snake higher in order to get in the range that he wanted after the fees were taken out.

Either way, the seller isn't doing himself any justice by keeping the "deposit" when the buyer wasn't backing out due to changing his mind. He backed out because the seller added additional fees on top of the already agreed upon price AFTER it was paid off.

For reasons already brought up, by others, the seller is in the wrong.
Seller should refund the OP, in full, without keeping the nonrefundable portion that, in this particular case, he is not entitled to.

....

Originally Posted by ElexisOrtiz

And you're quick to jump all over me, I posted that last night, I did NOT say that Nick asked him to pay that way, or that nick asked him to pay the fees, in fact I said he said he didn't ask him to pay the fees, that he needed to see what all was on his paypal when he got home because there were random fees as well that he wanted to check on from his computer. Nick was out duck hunting and the OP got angry because he didn't answer one message while he was hunting and said he wanted to see what was going on in his paypal, which he told me there were miscellaneous fees that his son had done with his phone.

Now I am currently in a hospital bed, I am not going to answer again right now.

So according to the information he told Elexis, the situation went something like this:

• Shaun confirms he made the last payment and wants to discuss shipping.
• Nick had to double-check his account because he was confused by extra fees. Because he wasn't aware of the fees from the phone, he assumed they were due to the multiple payments. This misunderstanding could be supported by his text "I have never had a problem before..", by which he means with Paypal fees, not a buyer refusing to pay fees. (Still speculation based partially on third-party information at this point, however.)
• Shaun protested to paying the 3% Paypal fee (seen in the screenshots).
• Nick goes AWOL. Shaun, still under the impression that they were both talking about the 3%, requests a refund and the rest is outlined in the BOI.

While I see that the situation may be due to a simple misunderstanding, Nick said "also it [sic] 175 not 175 and I pay the fees" which can only be interpreted as all fees, not just the mystery fees outside of the standard 3%.

At that point in the conversation, it would have been better for Nick to say, "My Paypal totals are not adding up correctly and I'm out hunting at the moment. Please let me confirm we're settled and I'll get back to you by (whenever he was finished hunting)." That way it wouldn't put the onus on Shaun to set the timeline and proceed accordingly in Nick's absence. I understand that sellers shouldn't have to tell the world where they are every minute of the day, but with an open issue like this, Nick could have put in a bit more effort to communicate with his customer and manage Shaun's expectations about how the situation would be handled (or at least when it would be handled by).

I sympathize with Nick being caught off-guard and concerned by unknown extra fees. That said, regardless of what the fees were for this transaction, he should have either taken the hit as a seller and proceeded with the transaction or refunded ALL of the money if he thought the fees made the transaction no longer feasible. The buyer walks away disappointed but whole, and the seller walks away wiser. It would be different if Nick wasn't sure if Shaun made all of the payments, but that wasn't the issue according to everything we've seen here so far - the fees were the issue. It is that distinction that puts Nick in the wrong here. I don't think he's a scam artist, and I don't think he tried to pull one over on Shaun. Unfortunately for him, "I shouldn't have to pay this large amount of fees that I don't understand, was not expecting, and have never seen before" is the same as saying "I shouldn't have to pay fees," regardless of him expecting to take the hit on the standard 3% (if that's even the case). Shaun only acted based on the information, or lack of information, Nick provided him. In the texts, it is Nick who found the original transaction unacceptable. Therefore, Nick should refund the entire deposit and put this issue to bed.

PS - Elexis, this post is not to antagonize you, and I wish you the best for whatever your hospital stay entails!

Ms. Opalack,

There is three small problems.

The conversation happened on the 25th of Oct. And Mr. Heistan already refunded everything but the deposit fee. And Mr. Heistan has cut off all communication with Mr. Jones.

And is now, 10 days later, out hunting.

So the whole story you came up with, does not make a lot of sense.

As a seller who uses paypal, I know that the fees are my responsibility and not the buyers. If I wanted to, I could just add a few dollars to the amount I'm asking, but I don't do that either. I eat all the paypal fees and the fees for shipping supplies. Paypal has always stated that you are not allowed to charge someone for the fees, so I do not think it's ok for someone to ask for them separately.

As for the deposit. If I make a mistake or have to cancel a sale for some reason, I refund the deposit right away. If it's something on the buyers end, the non refundable deposit stays with me. It's not ok to keep a deposit for something that is your fault.

I would just refund the OP and be done with it. Why cause such a problem for $35 that could ruin your reputation as a seller? Learn from this and grow from it. If you want to charge paypal fees, add them into your asking price ahead of time. You are still responsible for the fees, but at least you'll have a little more money from the sale to help cover that. Never ask for more money after the sale is done.

Originally Posted by ElexisOrtiz

So you're worried about a $35 non refundable deposit? Non refundable deposits aren't refunded because you decide you no longer want the snake. Non refundable is non refundable. Also if you're making 4 payments on 175 should you really be buying animals? I sent Nick a message that this is here.

Originally Posted by ElexisOrtiz

Ok the screen shots didn't appear for me before (on the tapatalk ap and sometimes photos just don't load), a lot of sellers I've seen add the fees to the asking price, or some people pay friends & family so some people may not even get fees from some doing it that way, whether the seller asks for that payment method or not, which some people think it's wrong to ask for that payment method but if the buyer does it not the sellers fault imo.

Oh... where to even start. For those who are not familiar with Ms Ortiz, in my experience it always appears as the following. Ms. Ortiz never seems to let details get in her way of making asinine remarks about an OP making a complaint here, especially if she knows the person the post is about. I once watched her "attack" (a word she is fond of using against anyone who has something to say about her) and berate a seller over them not shipping (I believe this is a post here on Fauna). Even though the seller repeatedly gave valid reasons for not shipping, naively thinking that rational thoughts and ideas would make sense to Ms Ortiz she did not stop criticizing the seller over the shipping details. Few side notes to that incident, at the time Ms. Ortiz had shipped exactly Zero times. Zero, as in none, as in never, but of course this somehow made her feel she knows best about shipping. Oh, and she was in the middle of working a deal for a few snakes, and Im sure this was strictly coincidence, from the buyer being brought to task in the post.


Paypal... this one seems never ending with Ms Ortiz. If I remember correctly she once made the incredible stupid argument of "why would they have a friends and family option if they didnt want you to use it?". Well, cant argue with that logic now could you. I believe she repeatedly commented on how she send funds that way (for goods and services) and I think that is how she said she always paid her rent. I said it then and I will say it again. That makes her nothing more than a petty thief.

"Also if you're making 4 payments on 175 should you really be buying animals?"

First off, what a **** comment to make about someone. But what makes this comment so precious is that it comes from someone that, from what I can determine from a post of hers, was so broke that she had to spend money out of a deposit she received for a dog she was selling for her own needs. Who spends deposit money before they ship and buyer receives? One must be pretty bad off to have to tap into the massive deposit of $50 for gas money and to feed a snake (BTW notice that the dog food was, at the very least, the 3rd item she was going to use someone else's money on after first putting gas in her truck and then feeding, I assume, a snake). Ms. Ortiz, heres a tip. If you need someone else's money to feed your snake then maybe you shouldn't have snakes. Poor Osiris probably would have starved to death if not for the $50 you received as a deposit. I mean if you had other funds at the time surely you wouldnt have used another persons money, would you? You apparently had $50 to your name that wasn't even yours to use yet and you have the audacity to make that comment about another member of the community. I am probably repeating myself here but to me you are like a dingleberry clinging to the ass of this industry.

To the Admins... I believe this post is justified. I am commenting on the validity of anothers comments and showing what I feel is her history of making such posts about others here on the BOI. It is for these reasons, I believe, that Ms. Ortiz has been removed from numerous BOI type sites on face book.

Originally Posted by BillZ

Oh... where to even start. For those who are not familiar with Ms Ortiz, in my experience it always appears as the following. Ms. Ortiz never seems to let details get in her way of making asinine remarks about an OP making a complaint here, especially if she knows the person the post is about. I once watched her "attack" (a word she is fond of using against anyone who has something to say about her) and berate a seller over them not shipping (I believe this is a post here on Fauna). Even though the seller repeatedly gave valid reasons for not shipping, naively thinking that rational thoughts and ideas would make sense to Ms Ortiz she did not stop criticizing the seller over the shipping details. Few side notes to that incident, at the time Ms. Ortiz had shipped exactly Zero times. Zero, as in none, as in never, but of course this somehow made her feel she knows best about shipping. Oh, and she was in the middle of working a deal for a few snakes, and Im sure this was strictly coincidence, from the buyer being brought to task in the post.


Paypal... this one seems never ending with Ms Ortiz. If I remember correctly she once made the incredible stupid argument of "why would they have a friends and family option if they didnt want you to use it?". Well, cant argue with that logic now could you. I believe she repeatedly commented on how she send funds that way (for goods and services) and I think that is how she said she always paid her rent. I said it then and I will say it again. That makes her nothing more than a petty thief.

"Also if you're making 4 payments on 175 should you really be buying animals?"

First off, what a **** comment to make about someone. But what makes this comment so precious is that it comes from someone that, from what I can determine from a post of hers, was so broke that she had to spend money out of a deposit she received for a dog she was selling for her own needs. Who spends deposit money before they ship and buyer receives? One must be pretty bad off to have to tap into the massive deposit of $50 for gas money and to feed a snake (BTW notice that the dog food was, at the very least, the 3rd item she was going to use someone else's money on after first putting gas in her truck and then feeding, I assume, a snake). Ms. Ortiz, heres a tip. If you need someone else's money to feed your snake then maybe you shouldn't have snakes. Poor Osiris probably would have starved to death if not for the $50 you received as a deposit. I mean if you had other funds at the time surely you wouldnt have used another persons money, would you? You apparently had $50 to your name that wasn't even yours to use yet and you have the audacity to make that comment about another member of the community. I am probably repeating myself here but to me you are like a dingleberry clinging to the ass of this industry.

To the Admins... I believe this post is justified. I am commenting on the validity of anothers comments and showing what I feel is her history of making such posts about others here on the BOI. It is for these reasons, I believe, that Ms. Ortiz has been removed from numerous BOI type sites on face book.

Bill, you hate me and I surely hate you. It's amazing you have fixated on me to the point you kept an irrelevant screen shot for OVER A YEAR. Just to try to use it against me. Get me out of your head, leave me alone, stop trying to make me out to be a bad person when you're the one who has obviously taken so much time trying to make me out to be a bad person. Grow up.

And yea, I used some money, OVER A YEAR AGO for the animals. I now breed my own rats, am taking care of 15 snakes, 6 of which are not mine. But you don't have all of that info do you? No. You want to use info from OVER A YEAR AGO to try to ruin me because you are a petty person who cannot let go of an argument and you getting banned from a group for personally attacking me for absolutely no reason or is disagreeing with someone enough reason to go on their facebook and personally attack them and their family? I am sitting in a HOSPITAL BED IN PAIN! and you are seriously dredging up old info as if it is relevant now, most of which you can't even prove. Btw that deposit was used for the animals since my fiance wasn't paid yet, and that money was put back aside afterwards, hut you didn't know that either did you, nope.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by BillZ

I believe this post is justified.

You're not alone.

Originally Posted by CwnAnnwn

Ms. Opalack,

There is three small problems.

The conversation happened on the 25th of Oct. And Mr. Heistan already refunded everything but the deposit fee. And Mr. Heistan has cut off all communication with Mr. Jones.

And is now, 10 days later, out hunting.

So the whole story you came up with, does not make a lot of sense.

I was going by Elexis's post, where she said:

Nick was out duck hunting and the OP got angry because he didn't answer one message while he was hunting and said he wanted to see what was going on in his paypal

It is my understanding that Nick was out duck hunting (and therefore not responding) when Shaun sent the text in the third screenshot, on the 25th. Nick needed to get home to check what the extra fees were, on the 25th, to confirm with Shaun - not to confirm what they were when he was talking to Elexis.

I'm aware that Nick refunded most of the money already, but Shaun is arguing that he should also receive the remaining $35 non-refundable deposit. In my opinion, Nick should refund the entire deposit (of $35) because it was Nick who had an issue with the transaction on the 25th. It could be argued that Shaun was the one to initiate a refund, however he was doing that under the impression that Nick was not going to ship unless he paid the fees. Perhaps Shaun jumped the gun, but he only reacted to what Nick told him (that "it 175 not 175 and I pay the fees"), which is a change to the terms of the transaction at best and also a violation of Paypal's policy. I would be very concerned if a seller went radio silent right after I asked for a refund, so I can understand why Shaun took matters into his own hands. If Nick hadn't said anything about not paying the fees himself, then I would have been in favor of Nick keeping the deposit.

Hope this clears up where I was coming from in my post!