Wow, what a thread.
Hey all,
I've just read this thread through from start to finish. This is what I see:
An animal (the boa in question) was shipped by request of a buyer to a third party. Once that request was made, responsibility for the welfare of the animal was transferred from the seller to the third party.
The third party indicated the animal was received in good order, further absolving the seller.
The purchaser did not arrange for a herp vet to see the animal upon arrival at the shipping address.
Further claims indicate that after verifying that the animal arrived in good order, the third party successfully fed the animal, despite the volumes of literature that contraindicate feeding a reptile that has undergone stress due to shipping or being placed in an unfamiliar environment.
Another claim indicates that the third party observed a "kink" or abnormal presentation in the animal. The statements of the buyer do not indicate that they sought medical assistance from a herp vet for the condition. If the buyer was not informed of the sudden change in the animal's health status, preventing timely examination and/or treatment, the onus is still upon the third party and not the seller.
Warranty was not discussed until after the fact.
And finally, caveat emptor.
As it stands, the buyer and the third party did not take the initiative to ensure the health and well being of the animal. It is one thing to purchase an animal from the humane society, with all its shots and current medical info. It is another altogehter to enter into the purchase of a living creature, from someone whom you have no previous dealings with, and not take measures to ensure the health of the animal, and the validity of the transaction.
The seller entered into a "good faith" transaction, as the medium on which the sale was initiated (ReptiBid) requires its participants to acknowldge they are in the age of majority. The argument presented by the buyers mother is that the buyer is a minor and therefore not responsible for their actions. That leaves the mother in the dilemma of explaining why a minor, whom she believes is not responsible for their actions, is left unsupervised while accessing the Internet.
The seller has honored the transaction, as both sides have defined it. The buyer knowingly violated ReptiBid policy in order to make the purchase, and did not take the proper measures to ensure that the animal purchased was in the condition the seller claimed.
That's tough for the buyer, but that's life. As above, caveat emptor - "let the buyer beware"
