Bad Guy Jenn Black/Shaky Tail Exotics : Breach of Terms of Services/Fradulent Chargebacks

[spawn]

Margaret, the New Caledonia gecko community is fairly split on the issue of bugs and powdered/fruit diet. While I can respect the terms of service are there to protect you and make the buyer aware of what you intend to do and how you intend to do it, if the buyer doesn't want your animals anymore after learning you do not use bug feeders (something that is significant, by your own admission, affecting growth rate, development, etc.), why would you think that giving her 'store credit' would be an amicable solution? If this is merely your solution to holding a gecko that you could have otherwise sold months ago - fine, just admit it. But saying that you'll give her store credit in lieu of a refund doesn't really satisfy someone who is simply no longer interested in your animals based on the way you raise them (I am not criticizing your methods; I will do that in the next paragraph).

I realize that you do not think the diet is all that pertinent to the argument, but I disagree. Given that Jenn is in the same line of business as you (breeding and acquiring geckos to perpetuate stock), it would make sense that if she doesn't find something to up-to-snuff for her breeding efforts, she would be unsatisfied. I'll reference a quote from de Vosjoli's book on page 39, "De Vosjoli and Fast offer live crickets of the appropriate size...once a week to all their Rhacodactylus, as many as they will eat in one feeding. Some of the commercial breeders we interviewed offer live insects twice a week...and feed them pureed fruit only once a week. Some claim they get better breeding results with a greater amount of insects."

Now, while I'm not experienced enough to say one way is better than the other (I myself have a few Rhacodactylus for a few years now...), it's important to note that there is a line of thinking, going back to the original guys (the authors of that now old book), that bug or animal protein is crucial to raising healthy animals, or at least affects rates of growth, viability, and any number of a dozen other variables. If your buyer isn't into your animals because of their diet, she's not going to be exercising the right to her 'store credit', ergo that's worthless to her.

I'm not denying your animals appear healthy and will grow to a normal 30-50g after a few years, but the diet thing is a little more important than I feel you're giving credit for. I also don't deny that some of the information in that book I referenced is dated. It (the diet) should also probably be a little more noticeable on your page for future reference, if it isn't already to avoid this again. I think a refund should have been in order regardless of your ToS. Just because you wrote, "I don't do refunds", doesn't mean you can't, or shouldn't.

 

[LittleGrayTiger]

I have mixed feelings here; on the one hand discovering husbandry information one doesn't agree with (even if it's hotly debated) is a big deal to someone who's breeding. It isn't the same situation as someone who simply decided they no longer wanted an animal and would rather have their cash. Yet at the same time I feel it is the customer's job to read the TOS thoroughly and if they are not something the customer agrees with in a worst case scenario then that person should not buy from that particular breeder. The "store credit" portion of a TOS is likely there to protect a breeder from someone who may arbitrarily demand hundreds of dollars back months after purchase when the breeder must still feed animals, pay bills, etc. Why did the customer assume husbandry practices rather than ask? Reptile husbandry is hardly set in stone and with "younger" species in the hobby the level of debate on care is impressive. I don't see any attempt at deceit regarding how the animals are raised, their condition, etc.

I think agreeing to a partial cash refund would be fair just to resolve this specific issue; the customer would get some money back but the breeder would also be compensated for holding those geckos out of inventory for 6 months.

Maybe in the future there needs to be a nonrefundable deposit portion, followed by a refund schedule that shrinks over large periods of time. Full refund minus the deposit within 2-3 months, but after that the refundable portion shrinks with time. I mean six months is a REALLY long time between purchase and dispute. Sometimes life sucks and we find out things late, but I think some proactivity on the part of the customer would have helped here.

 

[tim brophy]

Life is too short. It is a small amount of money. Might be best to just refund and move forward. Not worth the drama.

 

[TheLittleHeathen]

I think agreeing to a partial cash refund would be fair just to resolve this specific issue; the customer would get some money back but the breeder would also be compensated for holding those geckos out of inventory for 6 months.

That does seem fair to me as well. However, as it is, the TOS did state that there would be none. When you're in a business of any kind, there's an old saying that "the customer is always right", but in certain cases that's not true. I read over the messages that were exchanged between Margaret and Jenn and it strikes me as odd that she (Jenn) would wait so long for a refund. Even if one was offered in the TOS, wouldn't it still seem strange for someone to suddenly back out after so long?

This however:

I think some proactivity on the part of the customer would have helped here.

sums this up perfectly. It's the buyer's responsibility to make sure that this is indeed what they want before they commit to something such as purchasing an animal of any kind. She had the choice before she submitted payment to back out then and there, but she didn't.

 

[bcr229]

When you're in a business of any kind, there's an old saying that "the customer is always right", but in certain cases that's not true.

Actually in a great many cases it's not only not true, more and more sellers are firing customers as some just aren't worth the effort; the seller knows they make more money with less hassle from other buyers.

 

[TheLittleHeathen]

Actually in a great many cases it's not only not true, more and more sellers are firing customers as some just aren't worth the effort; the seller knows they make more money with less hassle from other buyers.

Some even go the extreme route and quit all together. It's not easy running a business, that's for sure. It's all a learning experience.

 

[Big Borg Reptiles]

If the buyer became aware of feeding habits that made her no longer want to do business with you, I don't think that the terms of service are relevant. She did not change her mind or have buyer's remorse, but rather was not given the full story before purchase.

I recently filed a chargeback against someone (first and hopefully last time I've ever done it) because the owner was unbelievably rude. I asked for a refund and was told that their terms of service stated store credit only, no refunds. I told them that their TOS dont apply to a case where someone simply does not want to do business with them any longer and got my refund through PayPal.

If she realized after the fact that you were feeding them in a controversial and unsatisfactory manner, your TOS are moot. Just send a refund.

 

[Big Borg Reptiles]

What's really annoying to me about this is that just a few months ago, everyone was jumping down Underground Reptiles throat because of their terms of service which state that refunds will only be given as store credit. Now we see the EXACT same terms of service and everyone thinks that it's perfectly acceptable. I just don't get it.

My thought is, as a business owner, that I will do whatever I can to make the customer happy as long as they are being reasonable. If they were contacting me with serious claims (DOA, sick, etc) I would ask for proof, but if they're not happy and nothing has been sent I will give them a refund.

It would be different if she just changed her mind or was stringing you along, but that doesn't seem to be the case in any form. As far as I'm concerned, if the buyer is being completely reasonable and you are refusing to give them a refund, and even going so far as to post a bad guy thread about them on the BOI, YOU are the bad guy and should be avoided. As many others have said, it's not how you handle the good transactions, it's how you handle the bad. You seem like the bad guy to me.

 

[TheLittleHeathen]

What's really annoying to me about this is that just a few months ago, everyone was jumping down Underground Reptiles throat because of their terms of service which state that refunds will only be given as store credit. Now we see the EXACT same terms of service and everyone thinks that it's perfectly acceptable. I just don't get it.

While you're indeed entitled to your opinion, I really don't see how UR has anything to do with this. On a side note, I've just recently had a great experience with UR and would recommend them to everyone. But that's a whole other can of worms.

Back to the current topic, the way I see it is going back to what I said before: the buyer had the opportunity to not buy at all. If she didn't feel comfortable with purchasing from Margaret, she could have backed off and found a different breeder. Plain and simple.

 

[LittleGrayTiger]

I wasn't around for the Underground Reptiles thing (Never bought from them and don't look at their stock), but I do have to say that Nick is on to something.

I'm doing some digging with legal stuff and Terms of Service seem to apply only if a service is being provided; if someone no longer abides by the terms of service then that service is terminated. At which point a business couldn't enforce the "store credit only" idea. I don't think. So if someone wanted a refund, but did not want to stop doing business with The Harlequin Hoard (Maybe future purchases?), they would have to abide by the TOS that states store credit refunds only. However if they no longer wish to do business period with The Harlequin Hoard then the TOS doesn't apply and a refund should probably issued. The Harlequin Hoard would then have the right to refuse business in the future from that person.

That said refusing business over an innocent but legitimate issue may be reputation damaging, at which point keeping the money may not be worth it for The Harlequin Hoard even if the TOS applies. Which I'm not certain one way or the other if it should in this case.

Maybe in the future there should be an "out" in the TOS contract to provide a complete refund under a small set of circumstances these situations can fall under? Then the business owner can make case-by-case decisions on whether to enforce their TOS or make an exception.

(Disclaimer: if someone more knowledgeable than me regarding contracts can chime in or correct, please do. What's legally binding and what's considered a legitimate contract don't seem easily defined.)

 

[TheLittleHeathen]

I wasn't around either when the situation with UR was going around, I just know about them from my recent experience.

I'm not saying that no one is bringing up valid points, and I do agree that issues like this CAN make or break a reputation. Perhaps it is best to give a refund. But let's say that she did, for example. Say that the TOS was changed and something like this happened again. It WOULD be easier for her to make decisions like this, but say an exception was made. Wouldn't it be helpful to have it also lined out in the TOS as to what would qualify as an exception?

Then again, I'm not very well versed in contracts or anything of the like, so I can't say much about it other than from what I've read. I'll stick with the medical field rather than the legal field. =)

 

[hhmoore]

That part is simple: Exceptions to this policy are strictly at my discretion.

 

[chkadii]

What's really annoying to me about this is that just a few months ago, everyone was jumping down Underground Reptiles throat because of their terms of service which state that refunds will only be given as store credit. Now we see the EXACT same terms of service and everyone thinks that it's perfectly acceptable. I just don't get it.

My thought is, as a business owner, that I will do whatever I can to make the customer happy as long as they are being reasonable. If they were contacting me with serious claims (DOA, sick, etc) I would ask for proof, but if they're not happy and nothing has been sent I will give them a refund.

It would be different if she just changed her mind or was stringing you along, but that doesn't seem to be the case in any form. As far as I'm concerned, if the buyer is being completely reasonable and you are refusing to give them a refund, and even going so far as to post a bad guy thread about them on the BOI, YOU are the bad guy and should be avoided. As many others have said, it's not how you handle the good transactions, it's how you handle the bad. You seem like the bad guy to me.

I'm torn here.

On the one hand, I hold buyers to a certain level of accountability to ask questions if they have a strong preference. With ball pythons, for example, some sellers mention what they're feeding and others do not. As a buyer, I ask them because I have a preference, or at the very least would like to know what arrangements need to be made. If it was important that a gecko be a certain size or fed a certain diet, in my opinion that's part of the process of researching a breeder and the animals they're interested in.

Now, on the other hand, there's ambiguity around certain aspects that come across as potential problems. With ball pythons, an issue might be a snake that only eats ASFs, rather than a F/T vs. live preference (which is often times more workable), or an individual with hereditary cosmetic damage. IIRC, with Underground it was an issue with wild-caught vs. captive bred, which is understandably a concern of survivability and risk of parasite/disease transmission. There's a general consensus that these potential risks be explained upfront. The community seems to be in conflict about how much of an impact insects have on the virility and health of Crested geckos. So is this a "shame on you, you should have been forthcoming about this" scenario, or is it a "well if you cared so much, you should have confirmed?" I don't know enough to have an idea about how sketchy the gecko diet practice is, though my impression is it's more of a preference than anything, like slow grown animals vs. power fed.

I do want to add that while I agree with most of your opinions here, I don't think they are all applicable to the actual transaction. The buyer wasn't very explicit about their reason for no longer being interested. It wasn't something like, "these are my concerns about the health of your stock", and if it were I think it would have been easier to reach a compromise - the seller would've understood why a replacement wouldn't have been satisfactory and had an opportunity (if interested) to offer to raise a young gecko on insects for the buyer to spend store credit on, or find a replacement animal closer to breeding size to meet the time line the buyer was expecting. The fact that the buyer only made vague references to the breeder doing things incorrectly from a mysterious source, and waffled between a refund and a replacement, makes it seem like there wasn't much conviction behind a specific reason for not wanting the geckos. (The buyer didn't quite repeat what the book had mentioned, she just brought up stunted growth, which was addressed by the breeder and backed up by others here. No concern about virility, IIRC.) It would have been like the Underground customer wanting a refund but then saying, "I'll take another wild caught reptile instead." The issues wouldn't have been resolved that way, just as they wouldn't be resolved by getting a similarly sized gecko sibling on the same diet.

How can we be sure the buyer has a legitimate concern about why adding this animal to her collection is unfeasible, rather than tossing implications/accusations at the seller to see what sticks as a "good enough" reason to void the TOS? I aim to do what I can to keep customers satisfied, but I'd be very frustrated by people making up excuses to pull out of a sale for frivolous reasons without compensating me for the loss of time and business (while the animal was on hold, or in quarantine after being shipped and returned). That's the purpose of non-refundable deposits and credit options in the TOS. When can the seller push back and say, "I don't think your situation qualifies for breaking TOS," and how can they do it without coming across as sketchy/stingy/only about the money, or risking other buyers pushing back because "so-and-so was able to get a refund?"

As far as the breeder posting a Bad Guy, wasn't that after the buyer had already opened the dispute? It wasn't about being a novice buyer, it was because she violated terms of service while refusing to find a compromise. The transaction would have gone very differently if she had said, "I didn't think to ask back then, but I have done more research and it's important to me that the geckos are fed insects. What are yours eating? Just CGD? Darn, how can we make this work?" Or if she had even made a BOI info post and asked for opinions on a resolution rather than a bad guy post while forcing a refund. I'm not informed enough to decide if the breeder practices husbandry I'd be comfortable with (though her glowing reviews from others are encouraging!), but I don't think she's a bad guy for her own BG post in this case.

 

[Skinker]

What's really annoying to me about this is that just a few months ago, everyone was jumping down Underground Reptiles throat because of their terms of service which state that refunds will only be given as store credit. Now we see the EXACT same terms of service and everyone thinks that it's perfectly acceptable. I just don't get it.

What's really annoying to me is you clumping "everyone" together as though it's all the same people and we're now all hypocrites. There can be differing opinions within the same community you know.

If memory serves underground's terms were worded in such a way as to allow them to skirt every possible bit of responsibility in every conceivable situation. When an animal arrives dead, for instance, you get store credit(equalling the animal's cost only, buyer eats shipping) on your next purchase. They aren't obligated to cover shipping even if the entire hypothetical debacle is solely their fault. Not the original shipping, nor replacement/credit shipping as their TOS was worded in a way that you must accept your replacement on your next order, at their pleasure.

As for the situation at hand, this Blake person seems like a major headache and I personally couldn't have refunded fast enough to avoid further dealings. The Harlequin Horde was more than reasonable and a fair bit more patient with this customer than I probably would have been. While I can see the attraction to rigidly adhering to the TOS to offer the buyer a relatively inexpensive lesson in responsibility, is it really worth it? Cut ties, black list her, move on - be happy.

 

[Big Borg Reptiles]

Meg, coming from ball pythons myself, I was thinking the same thing about ASFs versus f/t versus live. Some people will absolutely refuse to feed live, and I have a few snakes that will not switch to f/t no matter what I do. I always make sure to tell buyers specifically if a snake is only taking live because I personally feel that it is important for them to know. Sometimes I have people ask, sometimes they don't, but I consider it MY responsibility, as a good seller, to tell them. If someone was feeding ASF and didn't tell me I would be livid.

Now to be fair, I don't know anything about crested geckos, but it seems to me to be a similar scenario. I thought everyone fed them bugs, but apparently there is a different way of feeding, and apparently there is a lot of disagreement about which is better. If I were buying and got caught up I might forget to ask and assume that they're feeding my gecko what everyone else is feeding them: insects. If all of a sudden it dawns on me that maybe they're doing something goofy and I think to ask, I wouldn't want to go through with the sale anymore.

If you are breeding and selling animals and doing anything different with feeding than what is considered standard, don't you think it would be good business practice to make sure potential buyers are aware? If I find out someone is feeding their snakes lizards or chicks or something I won't buy them, but why would I think to ask that if it's completely out of the norm?

 

[Big Borg Reptiles]

If I'm wrong I genuinely want someone to correct me, I'm really not trying to start anything. Isn't standard to feed them insects, so wouldn't it be one of those things that were taken for granted? Like if I buy a ball python from someone and they don't say anything I assume they're taking rats, because that's what almost every single person feeds them. If I buy a sand boa I assume they're taking mice. If I buy a king or milk snake I assume they're taking mice. Should it really be necessary for me to double check that they're following what is considered normal feeding practices?

 

[Iggster]

Nick, as a crested breeder I can tell you that the "norm" for feeding is not as black and white as that for most snake species. There is a whole slew of differently formulated commercial diets out there so when you ask five breeders what commercial diet they feed, you are likely to get five different answers. In regard to insects, I might go as far as saying that a majority do seem to feed insects, though the type of insect also varies. Personally when I purchase cresteds, I do tend to assume they are on a partial insect diet, but am never surprised when I am told otherwise as most commercial foods are formulated to be a "complete" diet... I hope this answered your question.

 

[chkadii]

Meg, coming from ball pythons myself, I was thinking the same thing about ASFs versus f/t versus live. Some people will absolutely refuse to feed live, and I have a few snakes that will not switch to f/t no matter what I do. I always make sure to tell buyers specifically if a snake is only taking live because I personally feel that it is important for them to know. Sometimes I have people ask, sometimes they don't, but I consider it MY responsibility, as a good seller, to tell them. If someone was feeding ASF and didn't tell me I would be livid.

That's absolutely ideal, and very considerate as a breeder to be forthcoming about that information. With something like F/T vs. live, I couldn't make an assumption as to what each breeder feeds. It seems like a pretty even split to me, even though the majority may use rats over mice. So how do you feel as a buyer - would you decide against purchasing from a breeder if they didn't specify F/T vs. live in their ad? Without a strong personal preference, do you consider it to be a red flag, or just more of an unexpected quirk? In my opinion, there's a difference between what the buyer prefers and what the animal prefers; the gecko might be fine eating insects. Picky or problem feeders, I'd argue, the breeder should definitely be forthcoming about because it requires the buyer to make husbandry changes. For this situation (assuming the lack of insects doesn't impact health and only slows growth rates), it's more like being upset that a well started BP was fed mice as a hatchling before it was converted to rats. Not everyone's choice, not a common practice, but not really a deal breaker either aside from impassioned advocates of mice.

I'm just as curious about what the impact of not feeding insects is on geckos, but do want to reiterate that while it is a concern for some, it doesn't seem to be the buyer's, since she was open to a replacement sibling being fed the same diet. There was some speculation that the buyer was using it as an excuse to get a refund because money was tight, or simple buyers remorse because they found something else they'd rather have instead, but I think the most plausible reason might be that she had been expecting to receive a ready to breed gecko and get started on her season. The first two reasons are exactly why breeders have TOS to protect themselves from. The third is a little ambiguous; either of them could have communicated more to manage expectations and from what people have chimed in with, location also has a sizable (pardon the pun) impact on growth rates, so it isn't necessarily a husbandry issue. I understand the buyers disappointment if that's the case, but I couldn't expect the breeder to warn me about it either. With BPs, I'm more alarmed by females advertised as ready to breed at 18 months than I am about them just about breeding size at 2 years, even though I'd love to be able to breed sooner. As a buyer, I'd consider it lesson learned to get a 500g snake that's a year old even though some CAN reach 900g.

As a seller, I'd be more understanding if a buyer said, "I'm disappointed because of X reason. Am I way out of line to expect that? What can be learned from this?" For someone humble, honest, and looking to learn, I'd happily do what I can to help, even as much as saying "listen, you seem to have loved this gecko when you bought him and I don't think that part has changed. How do you feel about going through with the transaction, and I'll throw in this (let's be reasonable here, not super fancy) hatchling to compensate for a breeding season you were bummed about losing." But if someone has unrealistic expectations, acts as if they know better with unfounded claims, and then treats me like I'm a jerk? I'd be much less willing to bend over backwards and work around something I specifically put in place to protect myself. If we put all the little husbandry preferences aside since there aren't any glaring issues as far as we know, and just focus on the human element, I think the buyer handled it poorly. The breeder shouldn't have to play nice at their own expense to make difficult or fickle people happy. I can't lie and say I wouldn't consider refunding a pain-in-the-butt buyer just to never have to talk to them again, but I can't blame Margaret for protecting her investments as a seller. She clearly doesn't have the TOS set up to be impenetrable like Underground (per the comment above) - she's stuck to her guns but was also very willing to work with the buyer and reach a solution where everyone was happy. It was only when the buyer tried to put her in a situation where she would have been at risk for being scammed (not that I believe the buyer had that intention!) that she declined.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Big Borg Reptiles]

Thank you Aimee, I appreciate you pointing that out. As I said, I'm just going by my very limited knowledge on geckos.

And no Meg, whether a snake is taking live or f/t is irrelevant to me as I breed my own rats. If the snake was taking ASF, chicks, or was an adult taking mice however, that would definitely be a deal breaker. That's why I said, I don't know how common of a feeding practice the formula thing was, but the buyer made it seem like it was a big deal.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's right for the seller to have sat on them for 6 months just to have the buyer want a refund, but I also don't think it's worth it to hassle them and make a big deal out of it. There should be some agreement as far as a non-refundable portion to hold, which I think is standard throughout the reptile industry, but making it into a spectacle and posting it on the BOI, in my opinion, is not appropriate. I would personally just give a refund. Nothing was sent, no transaction happened, and if anything the geckos are more valuable now that they're larger.

 

[chkadii]

That's fair, and I agree this was made far bigger than it needed to be. I think it just rustles my metaphorical jimmies that sometimes people get what they want by making a fuss rather than by communicating with each other. Thanks for providing your perspective!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk