Adam Tawfeek & Jesus Blackman Rojas

While I completely agree that both parties involved seemed to act childish at times, I can't help but laugh when I see people saying Steve was holding the snakes hostage. I personally don't see that to be the case.

Written or not, as men an agreement was made...maybe some of you speaking on the issue don't fully understand how ball python breeding works but when a breeding loan takes place, each party needs to be very aware that a female is finished. Whether that be finished because she laid her eggs or finished because an appropriate amount of time has passed. (Key word there being appropriate.)

Appropriate can be determined by shed cycles, feeding, follicular development or lack thereof, and time itself. Time doesn't mean "years". Time means more than a couple months and long enough to observe the other factors I mentioned. There isn't a set day when it comes to time, it's much more of a complete observation.

That's a bit detailed for all this I understand, but the fact remains that when you are talking about possible clutches that could result in thousands of dollars and some nice animals, I would be sticking to the agreement as well if I was in possession of the female.

Just because two men make a verbal contract, doesn't mean one has the right to exploit that fact. "It wasn't in writing so I want my female back now!" ...ummm, no.

This is also only one issue in all this, there are many things that could be discussed here but I'll leave the politics to others. I really just wanted to give a better understanding of breeder loans with ball pythons.

The owners of the snakes, Adam/Jesus have no right to step in at the beginning cycle of the females breeding.

For one they get her back, retains the Clowns sperm and ovulates later on, now They have a pure Clown clutch to profit off Steves male. Verbal agreements stand in court, as does possession law as well.

Guarantee Adam will never do a loan again, since hes clueless on how long it properly takes to QT and then breed to get to eggs.

Originally Posted by Retics'nBalls

What I find surprising is that after Adam told you that Jesus does in fact have partial ownership of the 2 snakes, you still tried to muscle them and bully them into keeping their animals. It sounds to me that you just wanted to try and breed the male to some of your other snake's, which weren't apart of the original and agreed upon 2 female mojos. This BOI thread just shows that you care only for the money, and tried to illegaly retain and hold on to someone else's personal property

You lack comprehension skills dont you. Hes not holding anything illegally as they have a binding verbal contract which holds in court! He was told to breed till till the snakes did their job. And he is doing just that per their agreement.

Hes doing nothing illegal but forcing them to stop attacking him for holding on to the snakes. You might want to learn about the law before you look like a fool.

Originally Posted by RichsBallPythons

You lack comprehension skills dont you. Hes not holding anything illegally as they have a binding verbal contract which holds in court! He was told to breed till till the snakes did their job. And he is doing just that per their agreement.

Hes doing nothing illegal but forcing them to stop attacking him for holding on to the snakes. You might want to learn about the law before you look like a fool.

Coming from you, that's just rich. Yet again, you're prostituting your own opinion as absolute fact. It's just comical, that you have the audacity to try to label someone else as a "fool". Again, we really have no idea just how inclusive their original agreement was. Verbal agreements can be legally enforced, but that doesn't mean that any verbal agreement will be. As with any type of law, contracts are open to interpretation, especially when obvious vagueness comes into play. This agreement could easily be interpreted as only involving ownership of any viable offspring that resulted from the pairing, not possession of the breeder itself. As the snake's owner is clearly arguing that there is a difference in their respective opinions of the involved timetable, and the OP likely can't prove that actual possession of the female was a necessary part of the arrangement, there very well may have been a case for the owner being entitled to retake possession of his animal.

Point is, don't be so quick to deal in absolute values, especially when it's clear that you're not taking many things into consideration. Unless, of course, you enjoy looking "fool"ish. I'm thinking that you might.

The essence of any breeding loan is the division of the resulting offspring. At no point did the owner make any statements in denial of his intent to be bound by the heart of their agreement; as the correspondence clearly shows, he actually made it a point reiterate that he fully intended to honor the base intent: a 50% split of whatever was produced by the OP's males. He apparently just wanted the opportunity to try his luck with his own animal, as there was, and - unless I missed it - still is no indication that the OP's males had got the job done.

If you people think that it's okay to refuse to return someone's rightful property, well, I think that's saying some very unflattering things about you.

Originally Posted by ApexPredatorBoids

Coming from you, that's just rich. Yet again, you're prostituting your own opinion as absolute fact. It's just comical, that you have the audacity to try to label someone else as a "fool". Again, we really have no idea just how inclusive their original agreement was. Verbal agreements can be legally enforced, but that doesn't mean that any verbal agreement will be. As with any type of law, contracts are open to interpretation, especially when obvious vagueness comes into play. This agreement could easily be interpreted as only involving ownership of any viable offspring that resulted from the pairing, not possession of the breeder itself. As the snake's owner is clearly arguing that there is a difference in their respective opinions of the involved timetable, and the OP likely can't prove that actual possession of the female was a necessary part of the arrangement, there very well may have been a case for the owner being entitled to retake possession of his animal.

Point is, don't be so quick to deal in absolute values, especially when it's clear that you're not taking many things into consideration. Unless, of course, you enjoy looking "fool"ish. I'm thinking that you might.

The essence of any breeding loan is the division of the resulting offspring. At no point did the owner make any statements in denial of his intent to be bound by the heart of their agreement; as the correspondence clearly shows, he actually made it a point reiterate that he fully intended to honor the base intent: a 50% split of whatever was produced by the OP's males. He apparently just wanted the opportunity to try his luck with his own animal, as there was, and - unless I missed it - still is no indication that the OP's males had got the job done.

If you people think that it's okay to refuse to return someone's rightful property, well, I think that's saying some very unflattering things about you.

You obviously don't know how snakes work then when it comes to loans. It was clearly stated he knew the female would be with Steve until so and so time. But he didnt factor in Quarantine time which caused him to be impatient. Steve has every right to continue to breed her till he gets eggs, and continue out the deal. Knowing this clutch can result in thousands of dollars, how would it be fair that Owner of the het gets her back, and she lays the eggs there.

You like to put small puns in to better you argument but its invalid. You already have steve hung out like a thief cause hes following out the agreement. This is some peoples livelihoods and taking her back messes up his top dollar in paying his bills.

To some its a hobby others its their income.

Originally Posted by RichsBallPythons

You obviously don't know how snakes work then when it comes to loans. It was clearly stated he knew the female would be with Steve until so and so time. But he didnt factor in Quarantine time which caused him to be impatient. Steve has every right to continue to breed her till he gets eggs, and continue out the deal. Knowing this clutch can result in thousands of dollars, how would it be fair that Owner of the het gets her back, and she lays the eggs there.

Given the OP's behavior, as well as his apparent advocacy of power feeding, I have trouble believing that the quarantine period is anywhere near what he says it was. If you truly care about the welfare of your snakes, you don't stuff them full of rodents to get them up to size faster. Just a bit of an aside, stating my personal beliefs.

Way to completely miss my entire point. You obviously have an inability to read and comprehend what I wrote. Unlike yourself, I'm acknowledging a great amount of uncertainty within the details of the agreement. Hell, the following exchange is more than enough to show that there very well might not have been the level of detailed discussion that you choose to believe, as well as showing that the OP appears to have taken it upon himself to dictate the terms, retroactively; as it appears that there was never a definitive timetable agreed to. Regarding law, I don't think that there's very much that's nearly as black and white as you'd like to make this situation appear.

Subject: RE: Clown x Pastel het Clown
From: <steve@serpents-den.com>
Date: Mon, March 18, 2013 5:54 pm
To: "Adam Tawfeek" <adamtawfeek2388@gmail.com>

Like I said you can come pickup the Phantom if you like but I just started breeding the Clown here on Jan. 27th so I'm not expecting her to have follicles just yet. She's going to stay here either till she lays eggs or I can stop breeding her and give her to you at a later date when I assume she's not going to lay this season.


Subject: RE: Clown x Pastel het Clown
From: Adam Tawfeek <adamtawfeek2388@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, March 18, 2013 6:32 pm
To: steve@serpents-den.com

How long did you think you were going to have my animals for?

Yet again, the owner made it a point to reiterate the fact that he intended to stick to what could easily be argued is the heart of the agreement: the split of offspring.

Subject: RE: Clown x Pastel het Clown
From: Adam Tawfeek <adamtawfeek2388@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, March 18, 2013 7:52 pm
To: steve@serpents-den.com

What's the problem, if your worried about me not telling you if she drops or something.g shouldn't I be worried about that as well, it seems like more is going on with her then your letting on I mean if nothings going on with her y are you so badly trying to keep her.

He was simply expecting the same degree of trust that he showed, by handing his own animals over to the OP.

Originally Posted by RichsBallPythons

You like to put small puns in to better you argument but its invalid. You already have steve hung out like a thief cause hes following out the agreement. This is some peoples livelihoods and taking her back messes up his top dollar in paying his bills.

To some its a hobby others its their income.

Didn't know that you're the only one who can make smart remarks. Try not to get your knickers knotted over my simply being better at it than you are. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to run your mouth, if you can't stand getting what you give.

It's funny that you bring up my opinion of the OP, but choose to ignore how he clearly chose to paint the rightful owner of the snakes as a potential thief. As, again, the owner made no claims of any intentions of dissolving the monetary part of the agreement, there need be no loss of the OP's livelihood. If his males sired a clutch, there's nothing to show that he wouldn't receive his rightful split. It appears that greed simply got the better of him, and he refused to let go of an opportunity to make damn sure that he profited, by whatever means necessary.

Contrary to what you're shoveling, the legal aspects are all very arguable and open to litigation. However, I'm not even altogether concerned with legalities. There are multiple ways that disputes can be handled, from calm discussions which end in meeting in the middle; to legal proceedings. The OP simply opted to decide that his way was the only way it was going down, and to exercise - what I believe could very easily be - unlawful control over someone's property. In the simplest terms, that is why I see him as the Bad Guy. He chose the least rational - and quite possibly illegal - course of action.

Dan, how many snakes have you bred?

I have bred quite a few & I am working on some ball pythons right now. I have a friends female & she has been with me for the better part of this year & is still not showing signs of developing follicles. Sometimes breeding snakes takes a long time.

I'm going by all the conversations both Steve and Adam had to make a determination of what the breeding loan entailed. The male was to be bred to 2 females & the female was to be bred by one male. Both snakes were to stay until eggs were produced.

While I don't agree with power feeding, it is a very common practices in the ball python business. Power feeding doesn't seem to affect BPs the way it does boas.

I am putting my personal opinions aside to make my decision on the issue at hand.
Was Steve a little childish at times? Yes. Was Adam trying to void a verbal contract without reason? Yes.

Both parties made some bad decisions, however Steve has their contact to stand behind him.

Originally Posted by Snake-Queen

Dan, how many snakes have you bred?

I have bred quite a few & I am working on some ball pythons right now. I have a friends female & she has been with me for the better part of this year & is still not showing signs of developing follicles. Sometimes breeding snakes takes a long time.

I'm going by all the conversations both Steve and Adam had to make a determination of what the breeding loan entailed. The male was to be bred to 2 females & the female was to be bred by one male. Both snakes were to stay until eggs were produced.
While I don't agree with power feeding, it is a very common practices in the ball python business. Power feeding doesn't seem to affect BPs the way it does boas.

I am putting my personal opinions aside to make my decision on the issue at hand.
Was Steve a little childish at times? Yes. Was Adam trying to void a verbal contract without reason? Yes.

Both parties made some bad decisions, however Steve has their contact to stand behind him.

No matter how long it took? In my opinion both parties acted very immature in this deal. What was the purpose of Steve trying to force the other party to send a shipping label instead of allowing him to come pick up his snake? He sure seemed to be on some kind of a power trip to me. On another note, people shouldn't be buying more snakes if they can't afford to take the ones they have to the vet.

If your friend decided that they wanted their snake back, and you refused to return it, I'd be just as quick to say that you're a Bad Guy for your actions. Retaking possession of one's property doesn't have to amount to absolute dissolution of the financial aspect. However, what you and your friend have going is irrelevant, as there's ostensibly no dispute. There may not be a single 'right' way to handle this, but there are clearly wrong ways. I think that the OP has chosen to go about this in the scummiest way possible. The intricacies of reptilian reproduction don't even come into play, with what I'm driving at.

At this point, I have to assume that a couple of you are actively going out of your way to miss my points. You win. I'm finally sick of repeating myself. You go ahead and cling to the premise that this "contract" is absolutely binding, and that it undeniably trumps ownership rights. For the half-dozenth time, I don't think it's nearly as cut and dry as you want it to be. More importantly, it's just a move, to refuse to return someone's property.

Luckily for the OP, the legal system isn't set up to help those who can't afford it, a fact which he appears more than happy to capitalize upon. Again, though, the legalities aren't even my main concern. In my eyes, if you're going to hold someone's animal for an indefinite period, purely out of some spiteful sense of entitlement, you're a Bad Guy. I'd also have to say the same for those who are so blithely willing to stand up in support of such actions. And...I'm spent.

Originally Posted by SERPENTS DEN

I'm assigning what I'm breeding what to this season and although I don't have everything up to size like I wanted I do have 2 huge Mojave girls available for him.



Hey Adam,

Hope your holidays were nice. I'm going to putting my Clown with your Pastel het Clown probably in the next week or so. As far as the Pastel Phantom he's eating well for me and I will start pairing him up late in the season after I get some weight on the females.



Ok cool sounds good, I kind of wish you would have told me you were going to be using my pastel phantom late in the season so I could have used him with some of the big normal girls and then dropped him off later in the season.

I can certainly understand why Adam first got aggravated with Steve about this. Maybe Steve was unclear and misleading about other details as well.