Dan Scolaro bad guy.

How is the fact that the shipment got sent to the wrong address being handled? The fact that it had happened and could have definitely contributed to the demise of the one skink shouldn't fall on Luc.

I think refunding Luc for the dead skink would be the right thing to do. Further, it puts an end to future dealings between you two for any replacement animal.

Dan, I think Luc shouldn't be the one to absorb the negative impact of the skinks going to the wrong address.

Alan:

Your opinion is appreciated but I am not sure you read the entire thread.

In short, I do not think that any customer should bear the full weight of shipper delays and that is why I waved the guarantee to include a free skink (5 skinks for the price of 4) regardless the outcome of the one that arrived perhaps dehydrated from the delay in shipping.

After threats and attempts of extortion by Luc and his father Matt for monies and more than the terms of purchase and my offer, the offered was retracted. I told his father I would rethink the extended offer this summer but he started a bad guy thread so followed through with his childish attempts to extort funds for a skink he is not entitled to for a replacement nor refund.

Seller's should not be intimidated or threated when they are nice enough to extend the guarantee, much less be threated and extorted for cash for something they are not entitled per the purchase agreement.

Dan


How is the fact that the shipment got sent to the wrong address being handled? The fact that it had happened and could have definitely contributed to the demise of the one skink shouldn't fall on Luc.

I think refunding Luc for the dead skink would be the right thing to do. Further, it puts an end to future dealings between you two for any replacement animal.

Dan, I think Luc shouldn't be the one to absorb the negative impact of the skinks going to the wrong address.

Dan,

I read the whole thread. The customer shouldn't bear any weight when someone acting on the seller's behalf sends the animals to the wrong address. They are not contracted under the buyer, they are performing functions for the seller.

It seems that you are using the fact that the father and son team aren't the best customers as an escape route for doing the right thing.

Condition A: package got sent to wrong address and was there for 3 days. That is not the buyer's problem. Talking about conditions B through Z that happened that made you upset doesn't cover the fact that someone acting as an agent for you made an error.

Luc made some other errors but 2,3, 4 wrongs on his half doesn't cancel out the one that preceded it.

Advice for buyers: Have a TOS covering purchases as well. Accepting animals that sat somewhere for 3 days might be setting you up for failure.

Now if the shipper had been contracted under the buyer then the delay would be on him to address. The shipping agency wasn't working for Luc, it was working for Dan.

I still feel Luc should be refunded the cost for the dead skink. That skink doesn't reflect on its how it's health was from Dan. With him reporting it the next day I don't think it reflects on Luc's care. The parties between the buyer and seller are where the issues lie. Since they were contracted through the seller, it is the seller's responsibility to look for reimbursement, etc from them.

It is how a seller handles a bad customer that shows character, anyone can can look good when dealing with good customers.

Alan, while I agree Dan is still weaseling out of full blame for the carrier error, Luc eliminated any chance of retribution for accepting Dan's offer for another skink in the summer, or even before that, when he said the animals were fine after being at the pet shop for 3 days. He should have had them returned, if not the one that was dehydrated. But that's in the past, and isn't going to happen now. Luc/his father's apparent threats aren't going to make any vendor want to refund them, nor should Dan refund the money for the single skink because that would impress upon the idea that threats get you something. Both parties aren't trustworthy at this point for me. One's got evidence, but seems to be missing other information and admitted to lying, and the other's got no evidence.

It's time for Luc and Matt to apologize for this bogus thread.

It's quite clear that the terms of purchase were met and were extended to offer an additional skink, and their threats backfired to void any extension.

No seller/buyer should be intimidated to succumb to such threats and an apology is in order.

Dan

Apologies are much more fulfilling when you demand them, eh Dan?

Originally Posted by spawn

He should have had them returned, if not the one that was dehydrated.

Honestly.....is that REALLY the best idea? The animals have already been in limbo for days, one already suffering from dehydration, and you want to throw them back into more shipping?

What if they then had died in transit, before Dan received them back? Who takes the loss then? Forgetting the monetary aspect, haven't the poor critters suffered enough stress?

When you start adding caveats to integrity, it doesn't make it right.

Ponder:

Is this thread by Luc correctly titled?
Is the thread by Dan about Luc correctedly titled?

I think it may become that they are both right.

Originally Posted by Cat_72

Honestly.....is that REALLY the best idea? The animals have already been in limbo for days, one already suffering from dehydration, and you want to throw them back into more shipping?

What if they then had died in transit, before Dan received them back? Who takes the loss then? Forgetting the monetary aspect, haven't the poor critters suffered enough stress?

Cat,

I'd say we are talking about the business side of things. Obviously not good for the animals but this seems to be a TOS, business ethics thread now.

Of course, that would be why I asked if they died on the way back to Dan, who would take the loss. That would be part of the business, would it not?

And personally, I think that if you are in the business of selling living things, the well being of the animals and purposely doing something to endanger that IS part of your business ethics. But of course, that's JMO.

Originally Posted by Cat_72

Of course, that would be why I asked if they died on the way back to Dan, who would take the loss. That would be part of the business, would it not?

And personally, I think that if you are in the business of selling living things, the well being of the animals and purposely doing something to endanger that IS part of your business ethics. But of course, that's JMO.

Unfortunately many times it isn't. Just look at animal welfare when no money is involved. Now add in $.

In that example, if I was the seller, I wouldn't ask for them back. I'd offer to provide a refund or timely replacement as both can agree upon.

DTS Herps, Inc. -

"GUARANTEE: There is a live arrival guarantee on all reptiles when delivered on time with express service and an unconditional two-week health guarantee on all captive born snakes. All wild caught specimens are medicated for any potential parasites. "

That portion of Dan's TOS protects him but doesn't protect the buyer at all. Most TOS only pass on the responsibility to the buyer when errors of commission/omission happen at their end (signature waiver, buyer not available for 1st delivery attempt.)

The whole shipping process has the portions where both parties can be at blame.

This whole thread can be boiled down to whose shoulders does the 3 day delay caused by the wrong address on the package fall onto.