aleria
New member
This one gets more and more interesting.
To start, I am of the popular opinion that a refund less shipping is due, but for only one reason. The sellers offered it. If they had not, I would be looking at this as a simple case of buyer’s remorse.
A number of you have stated that the seller’s original ad was dishonest. In order for the ad to be dishonest, the sellers would have had to intended to be deceptive. This statement was based on two points in the ad.
1. The statement “unrelated to US bloodlines”
To the best of their knowledge…this was a true statement. The animals were imported from Europe. The line originated there. As someone pointed out, without DNA testing on every dragon in captivity it is impossible to prove this absolutely. However, given the origin it is both a reasonable assumption and assertion. Wendy’s statement that all Rankin’s everywhere in captivity are descended from one female is not only ridiculous, it is impossible to prove. Import laws country to country vary widely. Anyone who thinks that only one female Rankin’s has ever left Australia raise your hand!!
2. Wendy’s assumption that the animals are not pure Rankin’s
This is based on the whole vestigial jowl observation. I have not heard anyone other than her state that this is an absolute and positive method of identifying a hybrid…..just Wendy. If I were as familiar with the species as Wendy and Jean claim to be, and this was a definitive point in verifying the animals to be what she wanted, wouldn’t a reasonable person have asked for a side shot of the animals? Especially with a seller she had never dealt with before? At the very least she would have asked if they had jowls. She did not.
I can’t “prove” beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Sinaloans I breed were not crossed in the wild with Nelson’s 8 generations ago. I can’t “prove’ that my Cornsnake stock does not contain a trace of Obsoleta blood. However if someone asked me if they were pure, my logical answer would be yes.
The “Betty is deserving of a refund” issue is very true but a little skewed.. I agree that she is due the money she fronted….from Wendy and Jean. If they are predicating her being repaid on whether or not Caliente refunds them, then that is their bad. Caliente had a transaction with Jean / Wendy. Betty was simply unlucky enough to agree to provide the funding. I hope she gets her money back but Caliente owes her nothing directly.
The whole “they have both the money and the dragons” argument is skewed as well. Wendy was told in no uncertain terms NOT to send the animals back as she would not be refunded. The seller has TOS in place that backs this up whether Wendy saw them or, as any experienced internet buyer would do, bothered to ask what they were. Her sending the animals back anyways was nothing but a ploy to attempt to force a refund. As an experienced seller, If that were to happen to me, I would not allow a buyer to bully me into a refund if I had already decided they were not entitled to one. Wendy was in the wrong there…not the sellers.
To sum up…would I have refunded them if I were the seller based on their initial complaint? Probably. But that is me. Every seller reacts differently. I have refunded numerous times over the years in situations that I did not think the seller was entitled to one. I look at is as good will and the cost of doing business. Was Wendy entitled to one here? I don’t think so. However, the seller offered one without stipulations so they should honor that statement. That is their only real screw up in this transaction.
If they had not made that statement, they were well within their rights to tell her to pound sand. It wouldn’t have been a good customer relations move but they would have been on firm business ground based on TOS.
Fully agreed
