Bad Guy BHB reptiles "het" didn't prove out, won't fix it

[Casey Hulse]

From Wikipedia

In extortion, the victim is threatened to hand over goods, or else damage to their reputation or other harm or violence against them may occur.

Clear enough?

 

[Izoid]

From Wikipedia

Clear enough?

Wikipedia....the final answer in all things true.

If nothing else, this thread has given me great insight into who I would do business with and who I wouldn't.

 

[Casey Hulse]

World English Dictionary
extortion (ɪkˈstɔːʃən)

— n
the act of securing money Brians snake , favours, etc by intimidation or violence; blackmail I'll post on the BOI and hurt your reputation
extortioner

— n

extortionist

It is extortion for David to tell Brian that he wants a snake or he will hurt Brians reputation.

 

[annmikeal]

Well played Casey

 

[Izoid]

It is extortion for David to tell Brian that he wants a snake or he will hurt Brians reputation.

According to law there must be intent to obtain something that you are not legally entitled to in order for extortion to exist. Many people here, Brian included, believe that the OP was entitled to some form of compensation.

Here is a quote from "The Legal Dictionary".

"Under the common law and many statutes, an intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion. Statutes may contain words such as "willful" or "purposeful" in order to indicate the intent element. When this is so, someone who mistakenly believes he or she is entitled to the money or property cannot be guilty of extortion. Some statutes, however, provide that any unauthorized taking of money by an officer constitutes extortion. Under these statutes, a person may be held strictly liable for the act, and an intent need not be proven to establish the crime.

 

[Casey Hulse]

In the subsequent email from David to Brian, David threatens Brians reputation and uses extortion tactics on Brian.

I do not think David is guilty of a crime, ok?

 

[Amelanistic Orca]

On page 39; Dave only mentions that he has not bad mouthed Brian or made a BOI thread... No threat in that, and certainly no extortion attempt... It was an attempt to get Brian to kick it in gear though; which anybody would have taken note of IMO...

 

[Casey Hulse]

Email, David to brian, May 26th Not exact, I can't copy/paste it.

" Come on Brian, I feel I am being reasonable, but put yourself in my shoes for a minute.
I'm very aware of a breeders reputation and what it is worth, I went out of my way to not make a huge deal about this and only contacted you directly. I didn't make any BOI posts or bad mouth you to anyone"

I take that as a threat, maybe I'm wrong but if Brian thought that as well, it could explain why David was suddenly placed on the "backburner".
Read the email from may 26th, it is very telling to me. Clearly David is "put off" that Brian thinks his responsibility is only with Cliff...

 

[Jay Sommers Reptiles]

According to law there must be intent to obtain something that you are not legally entitled to in order for extortion to exist. Many people here, Brian included, believe that the OP was entitled to some form of compensation.

Here is a quote from "The Legal Dictionary".

"Under the common law and many statutes, an intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion. Statutes may contain words such as "willful" or "purposeful" in order to indicate the intent element. When this is so, someone who mistakenly believes he or she is entitled to the money or property cannot be guilty of extortion. Some statutes, however, provide that any unauthorized taking of money by an officer constitutes extortion. Under these statutes, a person may be held strictly liable for the act, and an intent need not be proven to establish the crime.

There is no court in this country that would look at the facts(or lack thereof) and feel the op was "legally entitled" to anything he was asking for.Especially after he had sold the snake to someone else.There is not enough proof and too much reasonable doubt.And a judge would never allow compensation for the hypothetical loss of not producing the desired results.The fact that there is no such thing as a 100% het(they do not EXIST) is enough to kill that argument. The law would view this situation as an investment that didn't work in the op's favor.You can't sue over stocks,loss at a casino or any other investment.Anytime you buy something and expect a return it is an investment and there is an inherent and reasonable assumption it could go bad. I fully agree with Kelli H, her points and her "sarcastic" analogy. She knows as much about genetics and ethics as anyone.I mean her and Steve are icons in this hobby/industry.She knows what she is talking about.

 

[Focal]

And a judge would never allow compensation for the hypothetical loss of not producing the desired results.

Actually, yes. I have seen it before in court.

 

[Jay Sommers Reptiles]

Email, David to brian, May 26th Not exact, I can't copy/paste it.


I take that as a threat, maybe I'm wrong but if Brian thought that as well, it could explain why David was suddenly placed on the "backburner".
Read the email from may 26th, it is very telling to me. Clearly David is "put off" that Brian thinks his responsibility is only with Cliff...

Threat implied.

 

[Jay Sommers Reptiles]

Actually, yes. I have seen it before in court.

no way.You would never be able to prove your loss.Without proof, no judgement in your favor. You can't get $ for something that never existed and since it never existed you never lost.You can't prove beyond doubt that these snakes ever would have existed.Eggs go bad,no way to tell what morphs sexes or number would have been produced.What if the babies had 2 heads,siamese twins twisted backs.You just don't know what could have or would have been.

 

[aleria]

Ok, so now we have a number of people actually saying that it is perfectly ok to backburner and ignore an unhappy customer if they mention the BOI and the fact that they HAVE NOT posted about the negative aspects of their transaction with a seller?

Seriously? I mean do you people even stop for one second to think about if the tables were turned and you were in the same situation. Would you really keep your mouth shut, not tell anyone, not post on the BOI, if you were ignored for weeks or months on end with no contact in resolving an issue and no explanation as to why it was not being handled?

If that's the case then you may want to re-evaluate your reasons for even using this site and what benefit it has for you. I mean the whole point of the BOI is for people to get some kind of resolution and to let others know of both their good and bad transactions. So if everyone out there wants to start feeling all offended if the BOI is brought up during a transaction that is not being handled in a timely or proper fashion then maybe the offended needs to grow a thicker skin.

 

[Focal]

no way.You would never be able to prove your loss.Without proof, no judgement in your favor. You can't get $ for something that never existed and since it never existed you never lost.You can't prove beyond doubt that these snakes ever would have existed.Eggs go bad,no way to tell what morphs sexes or number would have been produced.What if the babies had 2 heads,siamese twins twisted backs.You just don't know what could have or would have been.

Dude, I've SEEN it happen in court. Maybe not this particular incident but you said "And a judge would never allow compensation for the hypothetical loss of not producing the desired results". Workmens Comp is a prime example of this or the tons of cases I've seen where a company is sues because someone held them back from producing income over an amount of time.

I'm not picking a side on this case. Just saying, it has happened before and not all judges are the same. If a judge is the final determining factor, and he/she feels someone lost potential profit, it could rule in the plaintiffs favor.

 

[Jay Sommers Reptiles]

Dude, I've SEEN it happen in court. Maybe not this particular incident but you said "And a judge would never allow compensation for the hypothetical loss of not producing the desired results". Workmens Comp is a prime example of this or the tons of cases I've seen where a company is sues because someone held them back from producing income over an amount of time.

I'm not picking a side on this case. Just saying, it has happened before and not all judges are the same. If a judge is the final determining factor, and he/she feels someone lost potential profit, it could rule in the plaintiffs favor.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Jay Sommers Reptiles]

Ok, so now we have a number of people actually saying that it is perfectly ok to backburner and ignore an unhappy customer if they mention the BOI and the fact that they HAVE NOT posted about the negative aspects of their transaction with a seller?

Seriously? I mean do you people even stop for one second to think about if the tables were turned and you were in the same situation. Would you really keep your mouth shut, not tell anyone, not post on the BOI, if you were ignored for weeks or months on end with no contact in resolving an issue and no explanation as to why it was not being handled?

If that's the case then you may want to re-evaluate your reasons for even using this site and what benefit it has for you. I mean the whole point of the BOI is for people to get some kind of resolution and to let others know of both their good and bad transactions. So if everyone out there wants to start feeling all offended if the BOI is brought up during a transaction that is not being handled in a timely or proper fashion then maybe the offended needs to grow a thicker skin.

Brian wasn't the seller. The last person should get his money from the Op, the op should get his money from the seller and the original buyer should contact Brian.But I don't think he has any founsation for a request of compensation because there is no proof of the claims being made and the snake could still be a het.

 

[Focal]

You are comparing apples to oranges.

No I'm not. Just because they are two different incidents doesn't mean you can throw the apples/oranges card. They both fall under this:

And a judge would never allow compensation for the hypothetical loss of not producing the desired results.

Either way, my point was... you can't speak for every judge.

 

[aleria]

Brian wasn't the seller. The last person should get his money from the Op, the op should get his money from the seller and the original buyer should contact Brian.But I don't think he has any founsation for a request of compensation because there is no proof of the claims being made and the snake could still be a het.

And again, it was shown that Brian was already well aware of the fact that in the original order that was placed for the spider that the spider was going to someone other than the person making the order and it was simply a combined order to save on shipping and other costs.

So the OP was the first buyer, plain and simple. And it was already stated that yes, he did sell the snake to someone else already, who he has been working with and will refund as soon as he receives some compensation from Brian, if not before then since that is his customer, not Brian's. Brian's responsibility is to the OP, not the current owner as the current owner, from what I've seen appears to be working with the OP on the issue.

Seeing a post by the current owner might help clear this up once and for all so there can be no more questions of who owes who. But either way, the OP was still the one that obtained the snake from Brian and Brian was made aware of that fact upon purchase. If we're going to say that in situations like this, the refunds have to go all the way down the line for everyone that ever owned the snake then can you imagine how complicated it would get?

OP is owner #1, current owner is #2, and the OP already stated he would be refunding/compensating the current owner as that is HIS customer, not Brian's. The OP is Brian's customer.

 

[Jay Sommers Reptiles]

Brian did not sell the snake to the OP! get your facts straight.you are only causing more confusion with bad info. First sentence of first post by the OP.......

"In 2009 I purchased an 07 BHB Spider 100% het Hypo male from Chris Huffman. Chris is a good friend of mine and we've done numerous trades etc over the years. I know Chris has done a number of transactions with Brian and the Spider came directly from BHB."

Brians customer is Chris Huffman,not David the OP. And davids customer is Cliff.You are confused.

 

[aleria]

Brian did not sell the snake to the OP! get your facts straight.you are only causing more confusion with bad info. First sentence of first post by the OP.......

"In 2009 I purchased an 07 BHB Spider 100% het Hypo male from Chris Huffman. Chris is a good friend of mine and we've done numerous trades etc over the years. I know Chris has done a number of transactions with Brian and the Spider came directly from BHB."

Brians customer is Chris Huffman,not David the OP. And davids customer is Cliff.You are confused.

And in post #142 http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1148518&postcount=142

Chris posts a correction showing where he made Brian aware prior to purchase that the spider was not for him, but was being added to the order for the OP. So actually I do have my facts straight.