Drew at Underground Reptiles stole 784$

Originally Posted by Charlie Redmon

Maybe I'm too paranoid and don't trust peoples intentions sometimes enough when I don't know them. I doubt Joe will ever admit to this even if it's the truth, but what are the odds that this was never intended to be a purchase, that the only point in this was to tie up certain inventory to keep UG from bringing it to a show? Cancel it late the night prior to try to make it not look so obvious, expecting that they won't go back and repack for a show that late at night.

Charlie, I think you are reading too much into it.

Charlie

The first post of the thread has the OP saying he cancelled two hours after his order. In addition, he says he was told that his order would not even be packed until later in the night. I do not think that anything was done other than running his credit card.

Rian,

Please look up the general terms of when companies implement a "restocking fee". It is not when there is a tentative order, but rather when the order is shipped, and then returned. Your company makes me hesitate to ever purchase from you, or recommend anyone to you as business. Completely unprofessional and absurd.

Id like to know where everyone sees he's flipping these animals?

Ever think maybe he was going to pick these animals up after the show to bring back home instead of making two trips?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by UndergroundReptiles

I think there is a misunderstanding here that nothing was done on this order just because only 2-3 hours had elapsed from the time the order was taken to when the buyer had asked to cancel. This is not the case. First when an order is placed over the phone it is immediately processed through the form system and our credit card processor. Animals are then deducted from an inventory system. The animals are pulled, marked, and held, ads are removed and the animals are not sold to others. This process again begins as soon as the order is submitted at the end of the phone conversation. Also please note again that these terms were not hidden from Joseph. No one ever told him that he would not be charged as he claimed. If he had asked not to be charged we would have explained to him, like we do everyone, that the animals could not be held. Again we also did not only offer him credit we did offer him a refund as well but deducting for a restocking fee(this also is clearly seen in our terms). We have these terms in place so that employees are unable to pick and choose who gets what treatment in this arena, and to discourage people who are uncertain of whether or not they truly want to make a purchase from making a rash decision. On a separate note Joseph made no attempt to contact me personally to resolve this nor did he ever ask for me to work with him. When drew gave him the standard options he immediately threatened to start the chargeback. I tried texting him, calling him, and left him messages a few times. He never called back or responded. This order was placed on August 28th and canceled via text message after hours at 8:48 pm EST, so nothing could even be done until the following day either way. Since then I also saw Joe and his employees at the WPB Repticon and spoke cordially with them with no mention of this issue at all. I once again offered to work with him by offering him a refund -$50. The $50 would cover a $35 chargeback fee, which we are issued, plus only $15 for "restocking" which is far less than the standard 15%. The issue here is whether or not we did something which I fail to see how we did. We have terms for the customer which is clearly laid out and procedure for employees to follow. Drew did nothing wrong but follow the terms. I attempted to work with Joe but he never corresponded back and still refuses to compromise at all. I understand if a person disagrees with the terms and that is their right. No one was forced or tricked to make a purchase and no one ever is. I appreciate everyone's objective consideration in this matter and we are still open to working with Joe. Than you.

Rian Gittman

Terrible business and even a terrible guy. I will inform my friends in the hobby not to deal with UGR. I can't believe this guy is that stuck on not giving back due monies. I'd definitely be doing a few phones calls min.

UGR. How can you stand yourself?? Taking people's money for no items given! That's ripping someone off and I'd,well can't say. But you think taking money this way is a good practice?

Do you hang out with Manny Frade down there??? He likes taking people's money too and not giving anything in return for it.

Originally Posted by Joe9874

the last time I was there, I was sent home with a savannah monitor with snot pouring out of his nose.

I'm just curious, I'd like to hear more about the circumstances surrounding the savannah and why you were even giving Underground a second chance by ordering this time.

Originally Posted by bobbafett

Id like to know where everyone sees he's flipping these animals?

Ever think maybe he was going to pick these animals up after the show to bring back home instead of making two trips?

Originally Posted by Joe9874

On Thursday at approx 5pm, just before the most recent Fort Lauderdale Repticon, I called to place a wholesale order that I would pick up late friday night.

He states clearly that he planned to pick them up Friday night. It seems pretty obvious that selling the animals at the show was the intention. Although I'm sure many of the vendors that sell water dragons, tokay geckos, baby savannahs, etc. are doing the exact same thing, it was ill advised to shine a bright light on the fact that he would be selling animals only hours after he received them.

Regardless of the "re-stocking fee" and whether or not you agree with it, an 85% refund was offered. It also seems like store credit was offered in the full amount. To come on here and say that Underground Reptiles stole $800 is a lie.

Not that I agree with the possibility of a near-instantaneous resale of the ordered animals, but does it really matter? What is the difference between if, for example, Underground Reptiles sells those same animals or the OP does? Did they go through any more or less of an observation period? Unless there is some kind of manufactured story about the histories of the animals that is falsely attached to them and presented to prospective buyers at the show, assuming they would be sold at said show, where is the misrepresentation or the foul? It comes across to me as simply an instance of reselling. There are importers and there are further distribution points. Beyond that, there may be further points of exchange prior to reaching the final customer's hands. Unless the final customer is told by an intermediate seller that these were living in his backyard for ten years or some other fabrication of history, there is not really an ethical dilemma as I see it. What exactly does it matter if X animal is sold by party #2 at location B as opposed to X animal being sold by party #1 at location A?

So it seems to me that such is a side concern that has no relevance to the nature of the central complaint discussed in this thread.

On the central complaint, I am a bit divided. In one mind, I do not think one should tie up inventory and displace sale opportunities for a seller by cancelling orders (if possible). In another mind, I recognize that life happens and sometimes things are more complicated than simplistic binary perspectives allow room for, so there are often more than only two paths to take. In a third mind (I have many minds, so sorry about that), what kind of real loss was incurred at Underground Reptiles? The animals are still present (in the company's custody) and their sales/market value has not diminished. It does not seem like any cage removal or packaging had been performed. If ads were removed, that is the choice of the party placing the ads and that party was not deprived of the option of saving those ads for relisting (seconds to a minute or so of time per ad if saved in an easily manipulated format). In fact, the party's ads are structured as though via a template, so that work is further minimized even if rebuilding without a saved copy of the original (all that is needed are a couple ID text field entry repopulations and attachment or embedding of retained images). So what was the significant loss here? Are the employees being paid on the order of $200/hour such that credit card processing actions and ad placement justifies a cost to the company of at least $50 an instance for the time it takes? If so, is the company hiring? I promise I will do the same job for $199, thereby saving the company a fraction of cost.

Originally Posted by nickolasanastasiou

Not that I agree with the possibility of a near-instantaneous resale of the ordered animals, but does it really matter?

I agree. I am not a flipper nor have I ever flipped any animals......but this thread isn't about that.

No ads were removed no real work was done, Underground is just trying to snag some money, by citing some policy that does not apply to this situation.