DHserps... good guy

[deicide]

The Uniform Commercial Code governs sales of goods and is accepted by most all states. If seller gave you a promise, and you gave seller money, and he did not deliver on his promise, that very well may amount to a breach of contract.
This is true even though the parties are returned to their original positions. You mention that in preparation for the sale you took certain actions that caused you financial losses, too, and those are part of the damages that may be attributed.

This is actually not true when dealing with live animals.

If you feel the people/person you are selling an animal to may endanger the well being of the animal you are under no obligation to complete the sale
whether you have a verbal or written contract.

If a person becomes abusive with me during the purchase that for me establishes he may be a danger to the animal.
Once again whether the buyer in this case was or was not abusive only 2 people know that for sure.

I don't think it is the same thing. For one thing, I could see how a person's demeanor could be relevant when it comes to Rotts, if the buyer is really an a__hole, and a jerk you might be able to assume the person is going to give that personality to the dogs (ie. make gangbanger attack dogs or something). Not gonna happen with a snake. Secondly as I mentioned, it is he said/he said. They both say the other was a jerk, the OP also states the seller mentioned someone else was interested, and all of a sudden they are sold to the other person. So I don't see how you can make such a factual statement.

Actually it is exactly the same thing.
If the person becomes abusive with the seller that establishes in my mind
he may become abusive with the animals. Rottie, Turtle, Frog, Snake, or Goldfish. It does not matter. It is your right when selling live animals to refuse to put an animal into a situation that may endanger the well being of the animal.

 

[Lucille]

You say the UCC does not apply to live animals, or that somehow the legal rules change. Please document by citation that contracts do not apply to animals.

 

[Joejr14]

Contracts most certainly do apply to animals, there's no question about that. There is no special law that I've found anywhere in the Florida Statutes regarding sales of animals and a different rule.

Again, Daniel put up an ad on Reptibid, Hank purchased those animals as a 'buy it now' sale. Contract started.

When Hank sent Daniel the money, and Daniel said he would ship the animals, that is acceptance on both Daniel and Hank's part. Flat out, cut and dry.

When Daniel refused to send the boas to Hank, Daniel breached the contract. From what I can tell, a simple return of the money is not all that Hank is entitled too. It would seem to me that Hank is in fact owed an adult pair of albino boas, and Daniel needs to supply that.

I'll do some checking around, but I would assume that Hank does have some legal recourse.

Regardless of the matter, the fact still is that Daniel breached a contract, and is acting like that is not a big deal. It IS a big deal. You cannot do that to customers, or you wont have any left.

Now, I have no idea who Daniel is, but there have been quite a few posts recently saying he's a good guy--which he very well may be, and probably is. I'm just talking about this specific incident and I believe that Daniel is dead wrong.

 

[Ken Harbart]

Negative, Joe.
Hank does not have legal recourse, nor has he suffered any compensable damages. The sale of other snakes to make room for these is a non-issue, legally.

 

[repfriend]

Ken,

why do you keep saying there is no legal recourse?

They had a BINDING contract...and I don't think a contract is null and void just because the buyer said something that the seller didn't like...just like if the seller said something a buyer doesn't like , doesn't mean that a buyer can just back out of a contract BASED ON THAT.

Thats not how the law works.

And there are laws regarding this and they have been broken, it is a breach of contract.

You said there is no legal recourse based on the the phonecall the seller said was made.

First of all, there is no proof that the buyer was abusive on the phone. Right now its the sellers word against the buyer.

It might very well be that the seller just got a BETTER offer and decided to sell the snakes to the highest offer, sounds to me like thats what happend, being that the buyer didn't find out he wouldn't get the snakes until the day before planned shipping.

And no matter what one said or not...there was still a binding contract and the seller broke it.

I do believe the buyer does have a legal recourse. We are not talking about what we think ought to be fair or not, we are talking whats legal.

If you can, would you please back up with actual facts why the buyer has no legal recourse, as in some law or something written, that says that the seller can back out of a legal contract based on the buyer getting upset at delayed shipping or any words said.

Thank you

 

[Joejr14]

Negative, Joe.
Hank does not have legal recourse, nor has he suffered any compensable damages. The sale of other snakes to make room for these is a non-issue, legally.

I dont agree with that at all, but we'll see. I'm asking around to try and get an answer based on the information available. Just because Daniel returned Hank's money doesn't mean that the situation is over, or resolved.

The law isn't there just for viewing purposes. You cant just break a contract and be like oh, oh well. The law is there for a reason, and the seller in this situation broke it regarding contracts. I mean, there no doubt that Daniel did in fact breach the contract, correct? I guess the question just comes down to what, if anything, Hank can do about that.

 

[Ken Harbart]

Ken,

why do you keep saying there is no legal recourse?

I'm not saying that there is no legal recourse based on the buyer's alleged actions. What I'm saying is that there's no legal recourse based on the fact that the buyer suffered no compensable losses whatsoever.

Let's look at the various remedies that would be applicable to a breach of contract dispute...

1) Compensatory damages- Hank lost no money or real property, so there can be no compensatory damages.

2) Punitive damages- punitive damages are generally not compensable in contract disputes, so they are a non-issue.

3) Consequential/incidental damages- this would be payment for losses caused by the breach that, at the time the contract was entered into, both parties reasonably knew would take place in the event of a breach.

4) Liquidated damages- only compensable if included in the contract as damages payable in the event of a breach or misrepresentation.

5) Specific performance- the court would require the performance of the terms of the contract and . There's two problems with this... Firstly, courts have traditionally shied away from this remedy, except in cases of real estate disputes. Secondly, The court cannot order Dan to sell property which he no longer owns, nor can they require him to buy a pair and then sell it to Hank.

6) Rescission- the court would merely nullify the contract.

In this matter, rescission is the most likely outcome, as there are no financial losses to compensate, nor can a specific performance be carried out.

 

[ms_terese]

Who caused the deal to renege?

Maybe I'm missing something.

If the buyer sent the money, then demanded a shipping date that was NOT agreed to prior to the purchase, then seller had the opportunity to refund the money because he could not complete the sale to the buyer's requirements.

Is that what happened? Who knows, but it's certainly a reasonable argument.

Let me ask another question: How did the seller benefit by returning the buyer's money and then going through the task of reselling the animals? He had MONEY in his hand.

If the emails exchanged between the parties shed more light on the situation, then they should be posted publicly.

 

[Joejr14]

Well, here's how I understand this.

Animals are generally considered as property, and thus are in fact goverened under the UCC, if the state has choosen to adopt it.

I think he's got a case. He could be awarded damages, and I see this because of a few things. There was a contract, as Reptibid states. There is no proof that this alleged "abusive phone call" took place, and I dont think that it would matter if it actually did or not. The seller breached the contract by refusing to ship the animals and then selling them to someone else.

While I doubt that specific damages would be given (i.e new boas) I could certainly see Hank getting additional damages covering the additional cost of getting replacement boas.

For example, if Hank found a boa pair for $6,000, I think the seller should be responsible for the additional $2,000.

 

[ms_terese]

There is no proof that this alleged "abusive phone call" took place, and I dont think that it would matter if it actually did or not.

There's also no proof that the seller didn't interpret the buyers demand for a ship date he could not meet as notification to cancel the sale.

My point is that there's no proof of anything except that the deal didn't go through. The other information is based on perception by buyer and seller.

I think legal action is a good idea. Lawyers need more money.

 

[reptilebreeder]

Let me ask another question: How did the seller benefit by returning the buyer's money and then going through the task of reselling the animals? He had MONEY in his hand.

.

Like I've said it was he said/he said, but if it turned out the "buyer" was telling the truth, it sounded like the seller found someone to buy them for more money. That's definitely not a reason to break a valid online buy it now contract.
As for the shipping, when I pay for something I expect it to be shipped ASAP, not when convenient for the shipper. If the shipper just doesn't feel like it, or is to busy to get to the airport for at least a week, they need to slow down. Go to any site that sells by shipping product, statements like "98% of orders shipped same day" etc. it's a big deal. Granted the reptile industry is a little different. I've bought animals and waited weeks for them, but it was because of weather or some other agreed upon reason. Other times the seller has in their shipping notice that they only ship on Monday's or something like that, so you know ahead of time. This was an auction, the seller should have been ready to ship them as soon as payment was made. The guy paid $4000 for some snakes, and maybe when the seller said, oh I can't make it to the airport this week, maybe the buyer felt the excuse was a little flimsy, and may or may not have gotten pissy...I just don't think that was an excuse to turn around and sell them almost immediatly to someone else. It's not like he had to relist them and try to sell to someone else, sounds like the seller already had someone lined up, and may have even made more money. Possibly just used the I can't get them shipped yet as an excuse to piss off the original buyer, or to see if the higher payer could come up with the money. Who knows?................

 

[deicide]

As I recall the seller gave the buyer the chance to
setup another shipping date and the buyer refused.


"You are required to ship merchandise within the time frame specified during the auction, or, if a time frame is not specified, within 30 days. If you can't meet the shipping commitment, you must give the buyer an opportunity to cancel the order for a full refund or agree to the new shipping date."

The above is taken from The Federal Trade Commissions website.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/online/auctions.htm

As this is the case and the buyer recieved a full refund there is no legal recourse available at this point. The seller refunded the money and is well within his legal rights.

As far as animals not being covered under the UCC I am only going by
my own recent experiences. As I stated in my first post the buyer could not even find a lawyer to take the case.

 

[NdIndy]

Ken Harbart is correct regarding the possible reasons for a valid lawsuit in this circumstance. True, it my be bad business practice if the deal went through as the seller stated. However the buyer suffered no actual pesonal loss or damages as a result. Had the seller kept the money and still had the item in question in his possession the buyer would have 2 options. 1. He could sue to recoup the money paid for that item. 2. He could attempt to have a court order placed forbidding the sale of said item requiring it to remain in the sellers possession until all legal actions were completed by the court, followed by suing for transfer of possession of the item.

In contrast, if the buyer backed out of the deal for any reason and there had been in fact a binding contract the seller is capapable of suing for completion of the deal.

In this case the buyer is not capable of receiving any punitive damages as again, no actual loss was incurred. While it is unfortunate the buyer went out of his way to arrange his personal property in order to accomodate the anticipated animal, it would have no bearing on the case as it was in no way involved in completion of the agreement. It was of his own volition to do so before he had the new animal in hand. Had part of the arrangement been that the seller would only complete the sale if other animals were removed from the residence, the buyer could sue to recoup loss of said animals.

As stated above, most courts will view favorably on a person who refuses to sell a live animal to a person who is unsuitable for properly caring for it in the sellers eye. For example, a seller finds the buyer of a venomous animal has no prior experience with venomous animals, but only after accepting payment. It would be in the sellers, buyers, and animals best interest to not complete the sale and refund the money. True a lawsuit for possession may be successful, but it would not be a sure thing. This may not be involved in this particular case, but it is a valid argument.

These are just a few thoughts regarding lawsuits in general and may or may not apply to this particular incident. The truly wonderful thing about America (begin sarcasm) is that we can sue anyone for anthing at any time. (end) I can sue everyone on this board for my grandmothers death. Even if she's still alive. The suit can be filed, papers can be issued, and the case would be discarded as frivolous, but the suit can happen. I am threatened with lawsuits at least once a month and I have no worries. A little knowledge goes a long way in preserving my peace of mind.

 

[Lucille]

I think we should all pause for a moment, and be grateful to attorneys......

 

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

Negative, Joe.
Hank does not have legal recourse, nor has he suffered any compensable damages. The sale of other snakes to make room for these is a non-issue, legally.

Is this a lay opinion, or do you have valid legal authority to support this??

I agree the damages might be limited or too remote for recovery but this is not a lock,IMO.Another important question,which I don't know the answer to off the top of my head w/o research, is if actions for Specific Performance can be brought for sales of animals?? They do appear to be the type of specifically identifiable property for which such an action was designed....

 

[Lucille]

Specific performance is definitely related to sales of animals: think racehorses and so on. Plus, preparatory expenses such as selling existing property at a loss is part of the 'deal' (but of course has to be proven). This is far from a dead issue. Time and aggravation fits in too.
But, on the other side, lawsuits are expensive and can be very stressful for the parties involved.