Todd Smith (Deal Gone South)

The main thing here is to hopefully get the seller to do the right thing and give Greg a refund. Greg is intitled to a refund!
And to Wes, yes sir I can be civil....and want to be. Notice in my post, I never mentiond you taking foriegn objects and inserting them internally
Todd, do the right thing man. Make amends & give a refund to Greg. In return, not only will it make you a better person,but give you a better business reputation There's no way Greg would pull a fast one. Dave Derrick

his last email to you is rather shocking.
i dont see how a person can offer a refund of sorts and then retract based on greg seeking the advice of others.
where in his offer did it state greg was not to seek assistance of his peers or speak of the issue to anyone privately or publicly?
ie a gag order..??
todd states that he feels he supported the genetics by his personal assurance that the genetics were verifyable.
by industry standards that is not satisfactory.
unless agreed upon prior..MY OPINION in this matter is i would have expected verifiable paperwork from the original breeder of the animal unless i agreed that his assurance (todd's) was good enough in writing prior to sending out the money to him..
is that what happened?
second..
the animal was shipped in good condition per todd's opinion.
was it stated prior to completing the deal that the animal was in good condition for a snake that had been breeding for months or was it simply in good condition period.

was greg aware that this animal had been working his skinny self to death prior to this sale?

in regards to the offer is retracted ...somehow i dont think judge judy would be satisfied with the power trip that seems to have evolved in that email..again..where does he state that in order to receive a refund you must not speak to anyone in regards to your opinion publicly or privately????
i dont remember reading any conditions mentioning these terms.

personally i see the same type of behaviour being used all the way through this deal.
he seems to feel his thoughts and opinions are more valid then anyone elses and therefore justify his actions.
regardless of what is norm for the industry or anyone elses opinion..and thats that..period..finito..end of story.
take it or leave it.

ill state my opinion on this thinking again..
shocking and not condusive to me wanting to send my hard earned cash to this person..

btw..its early here in calif..forgive the typos ..
my coffee is still working its way to my fingers.

Dave, I did a Google search on the topic of Flagyl as an appetite stimulant and got 267 hits. Including a site called "Doctor Gecko" and an "ask the vet" column where someone had written in about a nonfeeding boid. The column was author by a Dr. Meakin. He wrote the following:

Make certain a vet examines him for pneumonia and mouthrot first. If all is OK, he may try to stimulate his appetite with an oral dose of flagyl and an injection of B-vitamins.

So clearly, there is evidence that Flagyl can be used as an appetite stimulant in REPTILES. I believe your NDR book is wriiten about the efects drugs have in HUMANS is it not? And I'm also certain that someone such as yourself who "has been to medical school"knows that even in humans drugs sometimes have differing effects. Such as the differences sometimes seen between children and adults with the drug Benadryll.

You also called me "iNmature" for saying Greg should not have trusted someone he didn't know. Well iMmature (I think that's what you meant) or not, I guess I was right huh. If it was safe to trust people to send exactly what they described we wouldn't need a site like this now would we?

The sooner people realize there is NO set definition for the term "healthy" and that one MUST discuss EVERYTHING upfront before the transaction, the sooner we will stop seeing situation like this one. I don't know either the buyer or the seller here. But, I tend not to jump onto the buyers side right away simply because he was the first one to post. Here's how this looks from the sellers point of view:

He agrees to a price and a shipping method and sends his animals across the country.

He is told the animals arrived alive and in "good condition." Which according to his email (the only facts we have from his side of the fence) was all he guaranteed.

Several days later, through no fault of his own, he is notified that now the buyer is no longer happy with one of the animals. And it is now exhibiting signs of a nuerological disorder. Further the buyer wants to send it back across the county and then get all his money back.

He addresses the concerns of the buyer and offers some suggestions as why the problem MAY HAVE occured and what to do to fix it. I capitalized "may have" because you all, and just about everyone else always assume that the buyer is telling the 100% God's honest truth, when in fact, maybe they just aren't real happy with the color of the snake, or maybe their transmission just blew-up and they need that $1000 back. Greg, I in no way mean you are doing this, I'm just trying to make a point.

In this case the seller even offered to take the snake back, fix the problem (feeding) and then return it to the seller. When that wasn't good enough he offered to refund the purchase price minus 25%. Now that may seem a bit much, but Greg should have discussed all that BEFORE he mailed off $1450. I know I would have.

As I said before, a lot of the $1000 Greg spent on this animal (it's just a boa) was for the genetics (DH). In this industry, if you are going to sell something as a DH and charge the market price for the animal, those genetics must be verifiable. "Because I said so," might work for Bob Clark and Rich Zuchowski but not for this guy in this case. Greg needs to address the health issue on his own because he did not cover his a$$ up front, but the genetics and the proof thereof must be provided by the seller. If he cannot provide the paperwork he promised, then he needs to refund Greg's money.

I've known Todd Smith for several years now. He lives just a hop and a skip away from me in a nearby town. In my dealings with Todd, he has always represented his animals fairly and I've been happy with every transaction we've had.
I've also done quite a few Herp shows that Todd has been a part of, and to be quite honest, his animals he's had on display have been pretty awesome and definitely well cared for.
I can vouche for the quality of his animals he produces

Greg also has an excellent reputation IMO. He has managed to keep a level head though-out this ordeal and has not resorted to the name-calling that so frequently occurs when a couple of individuals get ticked with one another. Honestly, I wouldn't hesitate to do business with either individual (Greg or Todd).

In my opinion, this is a deal that can be remedied. Todd is an easy guy to work with, but you can't blame him for being a little shocked when he was directed to this thread.

With a little cooling off on both sides, there's a great chance Greg and Todd will be able to come to a compromise that suits them both.

I'll echo the sentiments of Rick Staub, in that both the parties involved in this dispute are pretty good guys In an industry that has its share of crooks and con artists, I'd hate to see either Greg or Todd having their name drug through the mud..

Just my two cents,

Stephen Emerick
Napa Valley Snakes

bcp...... I stated it was inmature for you calling Greg "stupid" for trusting someone. Dave Derrick

Those are your words not mine. I said it would be "crazy" to spend $1000 on an animal he had nerver seen.

Deleted - violation of FULL NAME rule.

There is no way that every possible contingency can be thought out and put in writing beforehand when making a herp deal. Ultimately, the business side of this hobby relies heavily on trust which implies that all involved will work to the best of their ability to resolve conflicts fairly and amicably. It is easy to label a seller a "good guy" when all is going as the seller planned and they are not faced with having to prove their intentions when the plan goes askew. We now have a situation where the seller has to "prove" that they are a good guy and not just resting on the fact that business has gone according to their plan thus far. As far as I can tell there isn't anybody that thinks it is ok for a buyer to not be able to return their merchandise if they are unhappy with it for any reason at all, especially when we are talking large sums of money. Maybe this is the first time the seller has been faced with so much attention being placed on them regarding just one deal and they overreacted. Hopefully, those of you that know them and seem to have confidence in them can persuade him to reexamine his position.

Regarding flagyl, I have used it a few times also and just assumed that if it helped with appetite that my animals had parasites I didn't know about. I can't imagine that it actually would help to stimulate appetite as a direct result of usage. I think the nurse dude is probably right and all the other evidence is just antecdotal (spellign?). I wouldn't mind seeing a seperate in-depth thread on flagyl in the discussions area

John, of course one can't be expected to have discussed everything. But, I would think one might discuss something along the lines of "what happens if I get the animal and I'm not happy with it?" or "what if the animal won't feed?" Also, I think it is unfair for sellers to be expected to take any animal back, for any reason, at any time. Returns are something that must be discussed up front, period. A time frame must be established.

Suppose the seller in this case doesn't know the buyer from Adam. The buyer reports to him that the animals arrived in "good condition," then several days or a week later the buyer calls back and says, "I was out of town for a few days and now that snake is stargazing and won't eat, so I want my money back." The problem behavior could be the result of anything from an infection to a thermostat malfuction while the seller was out of town.

Greg has never said that John (I think that was the seller's name) gave him an extended warranty on the animals. According to the posted email the only thing the seller agreed to was "arrival in good condition." And according to the same email Greg reported them arriving as such.

Again, I'll bite on the unproven genetics issue, but not on health.