Mark Miller (loco-lizards) - Bad Guy !

Let me give you this example. A guy goes to a hit man to put a hit on his wife. The hit man is not who he says he is, he is an undercover cop. Obviously, the contract is no good and it is not really going to happen, but the bad guy does not know that and for all he knows his wife is going to be taken out. If what you are saying is true then the guy should not be held responsible because the cop lied about who he is. The fact is that in his mind he was putting a hit on his wife, and that is what matters. The reality that it was never going to happen does not clear him. The fact that Mark broke a contract and tried to change it for more money on a guy that for all he knew at the time was a great guy is very relevant.

In my opinion it is actually irrelevant (in regard to Mark's guilt) that Tony is an alias, as Mark did not know it at the time when he tried to change the deal, giving him no real reason to do so. The fact that it turned out that Tony is an alias was just dumb (and I mean dumb) luck on Mark's part. It makes him look better and removes him from the spotlight, but it really should not. It does not change mark's intent in the past. However, I do agree with you that they are both toilet bait.

John,

You are entitled to your opinion, but in retrospect there still was never a "contract" to renege on. Mark's actions in this deal were reprehensible enough either way. Holding that money all of that time was totally wrong nevermind accepting that last $500 when he already knew that he was never going to ship that snake. But imagine if Mark had decided not to issue a refund? What recourse would Antoine have had? Could he have gone to a court and said "My partner who really does not exist made a deal with this guy and I want the money back"? I think even Antoine would not be stupid enough to try that on a judge in a US court of law.

Originally Posted by pch101

I do agree with you that they are both toilet bait.

Hence the double toilet claw model that I gave them!

Originally Posted by Jim O

John,

You are entitled to your opinion, but in retrospect there still was never a "contract" to renege on. Mark's actions in this deal were reprehensible enough either way. Holding that money all of that time was totally wrong nevermind accepting that last $500 when he already knew that he was never going to ship that snake. But imagine if Mark had decided not to issue a refund? What recourse would Antoine have had? Could he have gone to a court and said "My partner who really does not exist made a deal with this guy and I want the money back"? I think even Antoine would not be stupid enough to try that on a judge in a US court of law.

That's why I stated that it is a matter of character and ethics Jim. From a legal standpoint you are 100% correct. You can't have a contract with a fictional non-entity. From an ethical standpoint though, Mark reneged on an agreement he believed to be real and genuine. That is my point and my major problem with him. The issues that came to light on the buyer after the fact are simply not relevant to this particular issue

Originally Posted by Suncoast Herpetological

That's why I stated that it is a matter of character and ethics Jim. From a legal standpoint you are 100% correct. You can't have a contract with a fictional non-entity. From an ethical standpoint though, Mark reneged on an agreement he believed to be real and genuine. That is my point and my major problem with him. The issues that came to light on the buyer after the fact are simply not relevant to this particular issue

I believe they are relevant as they point to the character of the buyer, and as Mark had stated, he had heard that the buyer was not someone that he wanted to do business with. Yes, it was after the fact, but Antoine showed his character and the fact that he was lying to Mark from day one is relevant. I'll admit I might have changed the deal too if I had come across some of the information that I have since come across about Antoine in the form of communications with Canadian breeders. I'm not going to post any of it as it is third party information and I don't expect anyone to give it any weight, but it bears on my opinion.

John, you are in the banking industry. Suppose your institution agreed to give a loan on a piece of land to be developed. Now suppose it turns out that you come to find out that the land is "dirty" even though it initially looked "clean"? Would you not want to renegotiate or back out of your agreement and cut your losses, lest you as an institution get stuck holding contaminated land that you need to clean up? Mark's (lack of) character and ethics are well defined by how he handled the cancellation of this deal. That he cancelled it is of less import in my opinion. Contracts get voided all the time. The devil is in the details of how the "divorce" is handled. I'd give Mark an "F minus" on that.

[quote=Jim O]I believe they are relevant as they point to the character of the buyer, and as Mark had stated, he had heard that the buyer was not someone that he wanted to do business with. Yes, it was after the fact, but Antoine showed his character and the fact that he was lying to Mark from day one is relevant. I'll admit I might have changed the deal too if I had come across some of the information that I have since come across about Antoine in the form of communications with Canadian breeders. I'm not going to post any of it as it is third party information and I don't expect anyone to give it any weight, but it bears on my opinion.

QUOTE]

The statement in bold above illustrates my point exactly Jim. If negative light was cast on the buyer after the deal had already been set, then Mark should have confronted the buyer with it, asked for an explanation, and made his decision based on that explanation. He chose not to do that. Instead he dragged the deal on for a year blaming CITES and whining that other breeders had told him that the structure was unusual. He then held the guy's refund up. That is patently unethical and deceitful.

Think of it this way. Your scenario would be similar to someone breaking a contract unethically and then justifying it by saying that six months later he found out the other party to the contract was a crook. Since it was not known when his decision to break the deal was made, it would have no bearing on the ethics of his actions.

The theory that it is OK to screw over someone because they are a bad guy just does not wash with me.

Originally Posted by Jim O

John, you are in the banking industry. Suppose your institution agreed to give a loan on a piece of land to be developed. Now suppose it turns out that you come to find out that the land is "dirty" even though it initially looked "clean"? Would you not want to renegotiate or back out of your agreement and cut your losses, lest you as an institution get stuck holding contaminated land that you need to clean up? Mark's (lack of) character and ethics are well defined by how he handled the cancellation of this deal. That he cancelled it is of less import in my opinion. Contracts get voided all the time. The devil is in the details of how the "divorce" is handled. I'd give Mark an "F minus" on that.

Apples and oranges Jim. In the instance above I would be directly responding to a situation that arose after the original terms were agreed on. The situation you described would would automatically void such a deal.

A more appropriate analogy would be: Supposing Mark and Tony had agreed to their deal and then the original deposit check had bounced? That would have given mark immediate cause to back out of the deal. Nothing concrete of that sort occurred however.

John,

We both agree that Mark comported himself very badly. As for which part of the deal it hardly matters. To me, the holding of the money since October of 2004 and accepting more monies after it was clear that the deal would not conclude was worse than any possible breach of contract. I suppose that is a matter of opinion, but to me that bordered on criminal whereas the cancellation of a deal was simply a tort at best, and borderline at that. As for it being apples and oranges I do not think that you would necessarily say that if you knew the information that no doubt Mark now knows, but might not have had access to prior to making the original deal. As you know, sellers rarely check their buyers' credentials (because they usually pay in full and all US Dollars are green), though Mark should have in this case. And that was a mistake. But once he came across the information I do not think that he would have completed this deal in his right mind.

None of this is meant to excuse his further actions, because they remain inexcusable. Perhaps it's best to agree to disagree on the rest my friend.

Originally Posted by Jim O

None of this is meant to excuse his further actions, because they remain inexcusable. Perhaps it's best to agree to disagree on the rest my friend.

Agreed

Jim and John, both make good points. If you look at violation of breach of contracts, there are extenuating circumstances where one of the parts can back-up without any legal ramifications. It can happen when there is knowledge of any wrongdoing (or intent) by one of the parts. We don’t know for a fact what would’ve happened had Mark sent the boa on time. Will he have received the additional 50%? Knowing what we know now we can’t bet money on it. On the other hand that’s a little irrelevant. If he was not comfortable with the deal he could have changed the terms in the hope Antoine would accept them. He could’ve proposed payment in full before shipment and expedite things rather than drag them for months. Although that would still be a breach of contract (not shipping with only 50% payment) at least he would’ve fulfilled part of his obligations (selling the boa to Antoine in a timely manner), and could be considered extenuating circumstances, in light of the information he obtained from other breeders.

Regards.