Mark Miller of Loco-Lizards Liar and a Thief

Jason, in your case I doubt if the animal you bought from Mark developed a tumor in a matter of weeks so in my mind the condition was probably there when you bought it. If that's the case, I disagree that Mark shouldn't have been held accountable for it. How did he "take care of you" in that situation, over the phone no doubt?

Sorry, my above posted quote should have read, "make it right" rather than take care of you. Seems to be a common theme and makes me wonder how many other make it rights are out there.

Jason, normally I would agree with much of what you wrote. However, the premise that you and I disagree on is over why the animal was taken back. Based upon the information provided here, as well as a phone call with John, I firmly believe that Mark purposely utilized the phone services so that John would have nothing concrete to present. If you will go back and read Mark's other bad guy thread you will see he did that there as well.

In addition, it was only AFTER the animal died that Mark finally submitted something concrete via email stating that he would not honor his word. Again Mark, if you sent emails prior July then I would like to see them (headers too).

Jason, regardless of your past business dealings with Mark, you have got to see right through this. The BS meter is way beyond red at this point.

Griz

Greg,
In the case of the Ball Python, I have no doubt that Mark would have made it right, my point is that there is no way he or I could have known that the snake would develop this problem, and for me to hold him accountable for something that happened several weeks after the transaction is bogus. If that was the case, then where does the liability stop? Is that to say that if I bought a snake from Mark and a year later it was diagnosed with Liver Failure I should hold him responsible for it? My point is the buyer has to take some ownership of the animal after the TOS is complete no matter if the seller offers to try to help or not.

Griz,
While you and I agree on a lot of things on this forum, I will respectfully disagree with you on this subject. I feel like I know Mark pretty well and for me to say that I think that he purposely conducted the business over the phone to prevent a "paper trail" would not only be wrong but down right foolish of me. I have done A LOT of business over the phone with out the use of email, not to prevent a trail, but just because that's how the agreements go down. If I feel like a contract needs to be put together then I make it a point to put stipulations in writing. It's not only unfair but also unlawful to make an assumption that Mark did conducted business over the phone to prevent any trail so that he couldn't be held responsible.

I just don't see him doing this, no matter what one other thread says, I think his number of good business dealings far out weigh his lone documented bad dealing. Remember that a lot of the users of this forum use it only to point out the bad deals that go down, if there was a thread for every good deal that happened I think we would be looking at this from a different perspective.

At this point it's the buyer's word against the seller's word, and to assume that the buyer is always right is wrong. I was taught a long time ago during my early years of retail management that a customer is always right until they are wrong. I am a firm believer in that. I also believe in taking care of your customers as well, especially since they are the ones that pay our bills, but there are times when you have to look out for the well being of your business, and in this case I feel that Mark should not have to give away the farm on a deal that took place several months ago. Mark's contract of limitations was completed several months ago.

If I own a Home Theater shop and I sell a new HDTV to a customer with a standard 30 day guarantee, and 4 months later he tells me he's having problems with it and can't get the manufacturer to fix the issue, and I tell the customer to bring the TV back to me to so that I can try to get the problem resolved and a couple months later I find out that I can't, that doesn't make me responsible for giving my customer a new replacement TV. My terms of sale were over at 30 days, just because I tool the TV back to try to get the problem resolved doesn't then make me liable.

Jason, I have to disagree with you on this! Sellers hide behind unfair TOS just to get out of doing the right thing.

How far should a seller stand behind a snake that someone paid $6500.00 for, a long time. alot longer than some of these TOS that I have come across.

An honest and smart seller will stand behind a snake that their customer is having problems with...after all you may get someone once on a deal like this. but take care of them and treat them right and you will have earned a customer for life.

Marks only concern was to take Johns cash and he has not been fair at all in this deal. time for Mark to come to some sort of a resolution with John and put this to rest.

Originally Posted by KCRD.com

at what point during a sale does the seller's responsibility stop and the owner's begin? I say at the end of the seller's TOS, and this shouldn't be voided out if the seller is trying to help get the animal back on track well after the TOS has expired. I think expecting a seller to compensate you for an animal that you bought several weeks ago, let alone several months ago is asinine and just not fair.

Once again Jason, you and I disagree on the context in which the animal was received back. Instead of me typing out yet again why I think Mark's lying I will simply refer you back to my previous posts. My gut instincts are rarely wrong. What I find interesting is that since I started posting on this thread that people have contacted me privately to relay their stories. Again, I would encourage people to keep their ears open as there is other information out there pertaining to Marks business dealings that helps shed some light on this particular instance.

Griz

Originally Posted by Ed Clark

Jason, I have to disagree with you on this! Sellers hide behind unfair TOS just to get out of doing the right thing.

How far should a seller stand behind a snake that someone paid $6500.00 for, a long time. alot longer than some of these TOS that I have come across.

An honest and smart seller will stand behind a snake that their customer is having problems with...after all you may get someone once on a deal like this. but take care of them and treat them right and you will have earned a customer for life.

Marks only concern was to take Johns cash and he has not been fair at all in this deal. time for Mark to come to some sort of a resolution with John and put this to rest.

Price doesn't matter, and unfair TOS? It's alot longer a period then many others. After the two week period the seller was done. Anything above and beyond was extra from the terms that were agreed upon.

IMO the snake shouldn't have been up for sale to begin with since it was already in the breeding process. That's a tangent thought though.

Originally Posted by Griz

Once again Jason, you and I disagree on the context in which the animal was received back. Instead of me typing out yet again why I think Mark's lying I will simply refer you back to my previous posts. My gut instincts are rarely wrong. What I find interesting is that since I started posting on this thread that people have contacted me privately to relay their stories. Again, I would encourage people to keep their ears open as there is other information out there pertaining to Marks business dealings that helps shed some light on this particular instance.

Griz

Griz,

Who is saying what? This is bordering on anonymous.

i have never heard anyhting bad about mark miller before. this is the first, but he is liable for the snake that he said he would take care of.

he took the snake back and it died after two months. even if the snake was sent back to him to get back into healthy breeding conditions it is his responsability for the health of the snake. if it dies than it is on him. this is a no brainer here. i do not see why john, being a breeder and all, would need to send it back to get it healthy, but even IF that is what happened than make is still responsible for the snake. it died so he needs to send john a refund of the full 6,500 or a credit.

the TOS is kinda stupid if you ask me. i have always heard that you need to wait 2 weeks before you even try the first feeding. how are you going to know that something is wrong in 2 weeks? that is 1 feeding, the 1st feeding attempt.

I give no credibility to anonymous gossip. I hate when people don't have the bolts to stand up and back what the're saying. If you are going to slander someone then you better darn well have the spine to both support what you are saying and stand up for your words.

Until one stands up and makes their person known; to me it's as if the comments were never said. This is a very serious issue that could potentially hurt Mark's business; that being said if people want to run their mouth about him, show some proof.

There's not many of us that do this on a full time scale, but in this case I know that Mark is in the same boat as I am, and when people make false accusations that affect not only his business but also his well being and his family's finances then it becomes a VERY serious thing. To some of us this is more than just a hobby, it's a livelihood.