Mark Miller of Loco-Lizards Liar and a Thief

Neither one is getting away unblemished here, either seller or buyer. It seems that we are all now trying to apportion blame: Seller is X%, Buyer is X % in the wrong due to A,B, and C.

Liquid Leaf's quote:

"I also agree with Griz. I understand what others are saying that the TOS ended a long time ago - but hefty purchases between big breeders don't always fall under those TOS."

If there isn't a separate TOS or written conditions they do. Otherwise you open the can of worms of what is a large breeder? Will I get those special terms? Or you? Just who qualifies. After two weeks, mark could have said, "Sorry but the TOS has expired as of X date...."

I am playing devil's advocate for the seller, it doesn't mean I don't agree with those playing the same for the buyer. I'm just focusing on the TOS piece of the puzzle.

Originally Posted by Griz

Erin, there is no doubt that both parties failed in varying aspects of this trade. However, ultimately Mark took the animal back, accepted responsibility for the animal, refused to tell John the animal died and then refused to accept John's phone calls and emails. If you were taking the animal back out of the "goodness of your heart" then why said behavior? It's clear. He's scamming. If he pays John then he can't pay Peter or Paul so lie and hope that everything ends up ok. Classic behavior that the BOI is no stranger to. How unfortunate.

Griz

I can see some of your point Bob, but any conjecture involving scamming is unwarranted at this point.

I can't speak for Mark, but I put myself in his place, and this is how I can see myself reacting to this situation:

I produce an animal, I then sell that animal. Regardless of the price of that animal, I produced it, and while my financial attachment may be severed at this point, my sentimental one is not. I still care about that animal. So, then I happen to call the buyer one day and find out that the animal isn't doing well, I am concerned for the animal I produced and try to help the buyer by giving what advice I can. As the situation continues to deteriorate, my concern mounts, and I start feeling frustrated. I can very easily see myself saying "send me back the animal, I'll do what I can" because of that frustration, and my concern with the animal. I can also see myself being appalled, and severely pissed off by the condition of the animal once I actually see it. Pissed off enough that when the animal continues to fail to respond, I'm going to blame its death directly on the buyer. And at that point, I'm not gonna call him. In my mind, I'd ask myself why bother? And then if the buyer did start calling me and leaving nasty messages, I'd dig my heels in and vow never to talk to him again.

Now, That's my reaction, putting myself in Mark's position. Would that be the smartest course? No, not from a business stand point. But its the course I can see myself taking so that I could sleep better at night.

So, I can see Mark taking that animal back for no other reason than to try and help.

Also, while my informing him of this thread was the first direct contact I've ever had with Mark, he and I have participated on another forum for almost two years. I have seen Mark be very generous with his time on that forum. And with his animals, he just gave away a hypo in a Fourth of July contest. And that is the 3rd animal I can recall off the top of my head that he has given away on that forum. So, from what I have seen of him, he really is a nice guy, and I don't doubt that his intentions were good in taking this snake back. I don't see it making him a scammer in anyway, nor do I see it making him indebted to John in any way.

Yeah, my point was just that with nothing documented about the situation as to WHY Mark accepted the return of the animal, the TOS may or may not still be valid. Big breeders aside (that may have clouded what I wanted to convey).

It's a very sticky situation. If Mark caused the animal's demise by a force feeding gone wrong, is he at fault? If he doesn't have proof that he was ONLY trying to get the animal healthy again for John, what is to show that he didn't accept it as a return?

If, if, if, if Mark said "send back the snake, I'll make it right", we may never know. I also agree that the snake should have gone to the vet, but again, if Mark told John "I'll take care of it", and we don't know he didn't... sigh.

Still. Regardless of the real reason Mark accepted the snake, he was in possession of it when it died and there is no necropsy to prove why it died. If he had stuck to the letter of his TOS, he would not have had the snake in his possession again, looking at just the 'letter of the law' so to speak.

Unfortunately, documentation is important. If you trust someone's word, they shouldn't have a problem putting their words on paper when push comes to shove. A simple email "I am shipping the snake to you, Mark, per our conversation earlier because..." or likewise Mark writing "John, I received your snake and in an effort to get it healthy I will..." detailing their expectations... well, this wouldn't be an issue now.

I hope both John and Mark can conclude this amicably. Unfortunately, Mark indicating that he would wait for legal action to resolve the situation means that both will be out a lot more money before it gets resolved, rather than coming to a compromise here. And also unfortunately, Mark was in possession of the snake, so likely he will not win from a legal aspect.

It sucks to have to break this down so coldly, but in speaking about terms of service, and if they are broken or upheld, a court won't really care about Mark caring only about the welfare of the snake. He accepted responsibility when he accepted the snake back.

Just more of my opinions. You don't have to agree with 'em!

Erin, your story might hold water if people did not know better. Again, giving away a $200 hypo is not even comparable to a $6500 blood. Two completely different leagues. Also, it's obvious from your previous postings that you know nothing about John or his background. If you did you would see that the idea of John sending the animal back to Mark to be nursed back to health is preposterous at best. If that portion makes no sense, and it doesn't, then none of the rest of Mark's story can be believed either.

Given that 2+2 = lying, and Mark is the one holding the money, then yes, it is safe to say he's scamming. It would be real easy for Mark to come on here and show the email correspondance that he stated he had prior to accepting the animal back. But, he can't. Why? It was only AFTER Mark realized that this animal was going to die that he realized that he needed to present some physical email evidence in this case hence the email stating that the death of the animal was outside of the TOS so John's screwed.

Griz

I've been following a long this thread since it started and I feel the majority of us have come to the conclusion that this is a tricky scenario anyway we put it.

1.) We have decided the TOS is long gone.

2.) We have come to the conclusion that Mark took back a sick animal. Mark says to try and help it. John says for compensation. Either way we will never know for sure. Both have long histories and are considered some of the best in the biz to my understanding.

3.) After all Mark did take the animal back and it did die in Mark's care (after neither took it to the vet).

4.) Mark stopped communication between the two of them (which I don't agree with unless it was really from the advice of an attorney).

Here is the next question that needs to be answered. Let's just say we agree Mark owes some compensation (He took it back and it did died in his care).

How much compensation is John entitled too?

Both made quite a few mistakes during this transaction. Personally I don't feel he is entitled to the full $6,500, but to what amount is he entitled too is the real question?

Thank you,
Drenton Beres

Wow, I just spent over an hour reading everything and now I get to post. Though many may not agree with it it is only my opinion so don't go and try to bite my head off.

Erin, I have to agree with Griz when he stated "John sending the animal back to Mark to be nursed back to health is preposterous at best". It is almost the equivalent as saying Steve Irwin (RIP) has sent back a crocodile to Mark to get nursed back to health.

Next, I did not see too much emphasis put on this but both John and another person stated that Mark promised John some sort of credit or compensation. Why would John or the other witness make up this info? Did they both conspire this? I know people lie but I just don’t see John making such an extraordinary lie. Mark does also hint of this in his posting. If this promise is true then there needs to be no more discussions about Mark’s TOS for the TOS would be broken by Mark and not John when he promised compensation after the TOS expired. The questions should be “do you really think John would make up a lie stating Mark promised to compensate him”?

I so also believe it seems suspicious that someone would create a paper trail ONLY after it seems that someone may come after you legally for compensation.

Forgot to mention -

I also found it suspicious that Mark did not take it upon himself to contact John after the animal died. John had to be told by someone else that the boa died. I am not even sure if anybody even knows the exact day the boa died, we only know that John was informed of it by someone else after the incident.

Again, these are just my opinions and are based on what actions I would have taken like contacting John to let him know of a death immediately. After all if I am taking care of someone else’s animal, it would be the right thing to do, right? The only time I would not worry to contact someone was if the animal was mine or wanted to hide something.

Oh, I also wanted to mention about quarantines. Sooooo many breeders out there will do breedings with other breeders without putting animals on quarantine. If I purchased from John Doe then quarantine is a must but if I’m purchasing a breeder from Peter Kahl from which I purchased great animals before and he tells me that the boa I’m receiving is in great condition and ready for breeding then I would take his word. I think John felt the same way about Mark.

Okay, I'm done

Why is it so preposterious that JOhn would send a NON-feeding deteriating animal to someone else to see if they would have better luck?
If John was so much better an expert, then why didn't he get it eating? From what I've seen on both parties, BOTH are respected breeders of reptiles, and I can't see how that if John didn't get it better, it's so strange that he'd let someone else also qualified try.
Saying that John would never have sent it to someone else because John is soo great with snakes makes it seem weird that he couldn't fix that snake. BUt then again... Mark didn't get it feeding either.
I'd think that they should be able to work it out between them, but if one person got unreasonable early on, then it might well take an attorny to do so.
I still wouldn't call it scamming when no one has proof of anything. Mark accepted the snake, so most would say he should accept some burden of responsibilty, and offer some compensation.
If the snake HAD recovered, would John have gotten it back? If yes, then John should be owed SOME compensation.
If he wasn't expecting that snake back even if it immediately ate and recovered, then I'd expect to see a larger compensation.
By Mark saying he offered to make a 'deal' or "good deals" on other snakes, it seems he was willing to offer something.
By being willing to offer SOMETHING he opens it up to say he feels some responsibilty. That doesn't mean he's "guilty of scamming" and that he owes a full $6500 credit or refund. But he should get that attorney to answer questions and take care of this one way or the other quickly.
Word of mouth is everything it seems, and a bad deal goes a long ways in future business.
Alll only MHO only, as I have no interest either way, I don't even keep boas(although most of my reptiles DON'T have legs! LOL)
Theresa Baker

Really Theresa? Why is it so absurd? What pre-tell was Mark going to do with that animal that John had not done? The fact remains that this animal was sick and was probably sick while Mark owned it. It showed signs upfront that indicated it could be sick but was explained away by Mark's story enough so that John put more stock in what Mark stated then what the evidence exhibited. However, given the fact that the animal never did get better it would only stand to reason that it's original illness that it incurred while with Mark was the culprit.

I am not as experienced as John but I can tell you that through my own resources I would never ship an animal to someone else should it get sick. I would exhaust my resources first and then let mother nature take it's course. Why? Because I have enough resources to know that if I can't fix this through my efforts then the odds of someone else doing so is slim to none. It's absurd.

Could it be that Mark wanted the animal back so that no testing was done? One would think that since it was clearly evident that the animal was sick from the get go that Mark would have a vested interest in a pathology exam. Or, maybe it stands to reason that Mark has a vested interest in making sure nobody see's a pathology exam. Makes you go hmmmmm.....doesn't it?

I am not asking you to simply look at the acceptance of the animal back by Mark. I am asking you to add together that fact, the fact the animal was sick from the onset, the fact that Mark knowingly took a sick animal back into his collection, the fact that Mark did not notify John EVER of the death, the fact that Mark cut off all communications with John after the death....... You know what that adds up to? I do and I am confident it is why many people will NEVER do business with Mark Miller of Locolizards again should he not rectify this immediately. It's hard enough to keep robbing Peter to pay Paul especially when your pool of Paul's is getting less.

Griz