If the snake "looked like a leopard" as the op stated, and it was convincing enough to convince three ball python breeders, including the buyer who was so convinced that he spent 1500 dollars on it, I would suggest that no one is at fault. Whenever we buy something, we must take on a certain amount of risk. It appears to be a leopard. Case closed. As I understand it, the leopard gene is thought to be dominant, and can be a little hard to pin down. You aren't dealing with a guaranteed allele like albinism where you can be 100% certain of the genetics. If the breeder bred a leopard which was carrying one copy of that allele, then you would expect 1/2 of the clutch, statistically, to be visual leopards. If one of those offspring "looked like a leopard" then there is absolutely nothing unethical about selling it as one. If it turned out not to be, as is claimed, that would be an unfortunate coincidence, not a misrepresentation.
I think that what happened is unfortunate, but I don't think Dav owes the op anything. Sometimes this stuff happens. Placing blame in this situation isn't appropriate.
Additionally, the OP seems to be asking for a full refund of the purchase price. Assuming that he and Dav agree to settle, I think it would make more sense to settle on the difference between the cost of a pied and a leopard pied at the time of sale. The op still received a healthy pied, who, he claims, went on to father many clutches of valuable offspring.
It wasn't worthless simply because it might not be a leopard. Asking for a full refund is a bit much, in my opinion.
Finally, this entire thread is based off of the claim that the snake in question isn't a leopard. We are taking the op at his word with no evidence. I apologize if they are in the previous 11 pages, of which I only read the first, but could we see pictures of the snake in question? Can we see pictures of him locked with females? Can we see pictures of the resulting offspring? How can we be sure it isn't a leopard if we know nothing of this breeder's methods and results? Genetics can be confusing, and without good data, it can be difficult to come to an appropriate conclusion. I can think of a dozen explanations for why a person might not produce leopards from breeding this snake that don't require it not to be a leopard.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am friends with dav and my opinions are therefore somewhat biased. Dav is not perfect; none of us are, but in the time I have known him, I have always been impressed with his kindness and strong drive to do the right thing. In my opinion, Dav would never knowingly misrepresent the genetics of a snake, and he will always go out of his way to make his customers happy. I have no doubt that if the op had called him and made a reasonable offer to make the situation right, dav would have helped him. I would bet money on Dav STILL being willing to do so despite having the situation posted in this distasteful, destructive forum if the op were willing to work with him.
Thanks,
Dan
Those are valuable points but none of that was in question by the seller from the start. The whole discussion from the seller was that he wasn't responsible because he didn't produce it. That is far from standard. That's almost idiotic. Well, it wasn't my snake that I sold.
It wasn't until now that anything else became a issue or a reason not to take care of Randy.
In all the texts back and forth there was nothing Dav stated that suspected the animal wasn't bred enough to determine it wasn't what the animal was suppose to be.
The only concern he had was should he pay because he states he just "sold it" as what the animal was suppose to be. He didn't produce the snake or make much money off it so he was in a quandary of what to do.
That's what the text and train of thought shows.
Dav states it wouldn't be fair that he would have to fix it all because he didn't produce the animal.
So let's look at what Dav stated about that.
He made me aware of this after its first year breeding, but did not provide any photo documentation of the offspring, nor any further information. I had no reason at the time to not take him on his word and
Dav didn't ask. He took him for his word. Seems to me a couple of years later when this spills out publicly to now demand it is sidetracking the fact that he feels he shouldn't take care of
his customer.
The only point that Dav takes with his customer is that he told him he was just selling for someone else as if that would make leaving Randy hanging justified.
Randy states that Dav didn't tell him that he was selling for someone else until after the first breeding season.
Those were the only disagreements before Dav posted and he didn't address either of them here.
1. He didn't address why he thinks he shouldn't cover the whole value because he only advertised the snake and sold it.
2. The discrepancy that Randy states that Dav never told him that in the first place even if that mattered.
Now we have the original ad that Dav made for the snake. Which position does that back up? It backs Randy's that Dav was selling the snake as his own and there was no mention of selling for someone else and only receiving 10%. Matter of fact, It states "
all Money" will go to fund a film project.
6. As such, certainly Mr. Foster has kept meticulous records to prove his claim, of which he has yet to volunteer this information or photos to me (to be fair, I didn’t previously ask for it).
Certainly, Mr. Kaufman has kept excellent records and has all the emails, texts, and all other communication from the original deal where he told Randy that the animal wasn't his and that he wasn't applying all the funds to making a new movie. That he was only receiving 10% and if something went wrong, Randy should just ignore the fact that the ad states that he guarantees the heath and genetics.
Surely a professional has all the records that he committed only 10 percent of the funds from the sell to produce the movie. Of course in contrast to his ad that states "all money".
It should be fairly easy to show everyone what actually happened here. He is after all a business and keeps meticulous records that show he only received a small commission. He also has records to show those funds went to produce the film.
There is no evidence presented that he told the buyer he didn't produce the snake before the sale. He is claiming that as a reason as to why he shouldn't cover it. Then he should provide the information.
It wasn't until after all this was posted that he now doesn't have pictures and breeding information to prove that his customer wasn't telling the truth.
That's messed up! In return he should have to prove he told the buyer what he claims. That he didn't flat out lie about selling the animals as his own and guaranteeing them as if they were his own stock.
That's what the ad shows and that is what the buyer states. Even then, He sold the snake in question, not the person he refuses to identify. Something went wrong it is this anonymous breeders fault, who is no longer in the business. Really?
Dav didn't address a single issue posted here. He didn't address the multitude of people that posted that even if he was just brokering the snakes he is responsible, like he tried to claim in the texts.
He just came up with a new demand that the buyer should provide information that he never asked for in three years.
Going back and reading all the texts, Anyone want to tell me where he believed that Randy didn't prove it wasn't a Leopard?
Anyone want to point out where Dav addressed in his statement that he wasn't responsible for the genetics because he only received 10%?
He didn't justify or prove his reasons with his statement. He added another reason why not to make his customer whole.
If we are here just to add more reasons that he never demanded of his customer I would like to know why he offered the animal for sale here stating
all the money would go to a film project? that he added that he guaranteed the animal to the ad.
If the ad is true, then his responses to Randy isn't. If his reasons to Randy are true then his ad is misleading.
So which is it? Do we mislead people before the sale or after?
Do we usually put up animals offering guarantees and state all the funds or going to a film project only to tell your customer after the fact that you only received a small cut on those animals and it isn't fair that you have to cover them? IS that good business? I don't think so.
Shouldn't Dav have to prove he told Dave that he was brokering? Shouldn't Dav have to explain why his ad states one thing along with his personal guarantee and then he claims to state to the buyer something else?
Finding out if the animal has been proven not to be what it was claimed is important. That should have been the first step. How many animals did you produce? Are we sure? That isn't what happened in the text. It was I shouldn't pay because I didn't produce them.
That's not OK. That's not anything close to what most people would think is OK. You sold it, you're responsible.
I would like to see the evidence that he told the buyer that beforehand if we are now going to play games asking for evidence that was never asked for.
