Chris, I must disagree. I have made zero speculation, I clearly base my argument on a claim being made here, it is not speculation. It is a claim being made here. It may not be true, it may be a complete fabrication, but it is the claim of reason for the deaths of many animals being made here. I have not seen that the OP has called BS on this nor has she offered another reason (that I am aware of so correct me if I missed it) so for anyone else to construct another scenario for this disaster of a situation is none other than speculation. I have not once offered my opinion of whether I believe that claim or not. What would it matter. As far as restitution is concerned, its a business transaction and needs to be treated as one. All I am stating is that, based on that claim, brought to us by the OP with no apparent dispute to that claim and based on the fact that this was a partnership and not, as someone so desperately tried to introduce, an arrangement where Mr Markward was being "payed" to perform a service for someone, that based on a TStat failure all partners should share in the loss. Put aside your feeling that the claim is BS. Based on what is being stated here, and not being disputed by the OP, do you think just one party of a partnership should suffer the losses due to a equipment failure?
As far as the OP's husbandry issues. This is clearly not speculation. Speculation = "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence". Nor is it a "cheap shot" These are facts posted on her own and are you telling me they are desirable? She doesnt think so so Im not sure why you or anyone else would. My purpose of pointing them out, as she herself has done, is to show that no one is above this in this scenario. She herself has experienced "less than desirable" conditions within her collection. Including , and most importantly, some type of heat malfunction which if had gone terribly wrong, may very well have had wiped out her collection, Much like the scenario that Mr Markward is "claiming" happened.
As far as anothers claim that I am trying "desperately" to separate the live snakes from the dead/missing snakes well thats because they are two separate issue at hand here. I am referring to the liability of loss of the snakes due to the TStat failure. If we are talking about making restitution, which we are, then they need to be separated into two points of argument for what the restitution should be. Is Mr Markward solely responsible for animals lost in an "as claimed" equipment failure? Thats where I argue no. Is Mr Markward responsible for the care cost involved in getting the live snakes back to health? I would have to argue yes but would also say that the OP maybe should/could have done more to be more aware of their condition.
Its just an opinion.. it may be a wrong one. It certainly will not be a popular one but it is how I feel. If this had been me I feel I would have gone to a greater length to find out just what the hell was going on. "We had been asking for pictures and weights for months on a few snakes" Im sorry but I would have found some way, within those few months, to get a better handle of what was going on with my live animals. In restitution, there is always a percentage of fault to decide. Be it an injury, an auto accident, regardless of what the loss is, there is a percentage of fault to be determined for proper restitution. Argue that he is solely responsible for the live snakes, Im fine with that. I will only point out what could have been done differently.
No one would argue the tragedy being shown here, or that the condition of the snakes shown in those images is deplorable. I am simply saying that based on this being what was in fact a "partnership" as described by the Op I do not think one partner should be held fully and solely accountable for the cost of replacement of inventory due to an equipment malfunction.