Luc Cauthorn and Matt Cauthorn of Mckenzie_river_reptiles are bad buyers

[E2MacPets]

Dan I believe it is against the TOS to post hearsay.

His father hid references to robbery/suffering in his letter to attack me to avoid an assault charge himself.

And I never claimed he or anyone was at fault or that the buyer made threats of robbery.

Within the span of three sentences you can't even keep your story straight.

 

[cyberfrog]

One thing I would like everyone involved in this thread to explain to me if the TOS was agreed to by entering into a transaction with Dan Scolaro and the terms of said TOS were met, why is Dan a bad guy? Did I miss something? From what I see:
The buyer saw a deal on cheap skinks and went for it.
Dan provided the skinks(evidently with a shipping error) which arrived alive.
At this point we have a questionable(per the seller) situation on how the buyer handled the newly arrived(and alive at that time) skinks, IE force feeding, per his admission.
One skink died.
Seller agreed to replace the skink against his own TOS.
Buyer wants better free skink than was offered even though seller is not required to do so per the TOS that buyer agreed to when entering into said transaction.

I would like to know what part of this(unless I'm missing something) makes the seller a bad guy? Evidently he's guilty of a boneheaded shipping mistake and may be guilty of a poor TOS, but if the buyer actually read the TOS and didn't agree to it, why did he go through with the deal?? If the skinks arrived alive even with the shipping error, the terms of the TOS were met and if the buyer DID read the TOS then he knows he has no claims, if he did not read the TOS then he really has no claims and would be wise to learn from this in the future.

 

[E2MacPets]

I'll disagree with the price of the skinks being cheap. They went for $60 just a few years ago and were imported by Dan. I believe he claims the deals were through his supplier directly and he just is the sole importer. Regardless last time I tried to order from his supplier I was told that I had to order through Dan. So the price has now gone from $60 to how much now?

As for why he's being labeled a bad guy for his handling of this situation... no one is saying that the buyer is flawless, some of us (including myself) have been critical. However the paranoid accusations that the buyer is threatening to rob Dan plus the "boneheaded shipping mistake" and poor TOS are things we are being critical of.

 

[cyberfrog]

Gotya, was just checking.

 

[Dan Scolaro]

E2M, you are full of wind, the fedex employee made an innocent mistake and that is all. Babies on another ad were going for 350 at the time and mine were 250 and I gave them to the buyers for 150. Great deal.

Dan

 

[OriginReptiles]

E2M, you are full of wind, the fedex employee made an innocent mistake and that is all. Babies on another ad were going for 350 at the time and mine were 250 and I gave them to the buyers for 150. Great deal.

Dan

I am sure the buyer doesnt agree that this was a good deal, looking back at your handling of the situation.

 

[Mckenzie_river_reptiles]

Facts/lies....????'s

"Weeks later, Luc emailed to voice that he viewed another vendor's advertisement of 2006 skinks, and they appeared somewhat larger to him."

Dan the gut said that they were 6 MONTHS OLD!!! I STATED THAT! You twist words, lie and change everything around It is IMPOSSABLE TO DO BUSINESS WITH YOU!

You lie countless times....Esspecially in your first statement! Which by the way has no Proof!!!!! I was going to report this to the Mod but you are making yourself look dumber so I think I'll let it last.

Where is your proof DANNY BOY?

I can't believe I am still confronting your every lie!

Also Dan The skink died with-in three days! Not a couple of weeks! OMG I can't take this any longer! Everyone that reads every post that you and me a have posted is going to see how often you change the story! One minute it's like the world is on fire the next moment or even same sentance the world is freezing!!!

Get a grip and tell the truth!

I will send the skinks back, for a FULL REFUND! $675.00 +shipping.

If you do this it may gain your name back a little....Think it over!

 

[spawn]

"Luc, I don't appreciate your attitude and name calling. As you know, I did not ship the skinks to the wrong address, it was my agent who made the mistake. I asked you nicely to stop bothering me about it and you seem to wish to continue for some odd reason. I don't like to be harassed and ask you do not contact me further. Dan"

Direct quote from the original thread from Luc, citing your email. My question to you is this: is this "agent" an associate of yours (ie. someone sent to bring the package to FedEX like a friend) or a FedEX employee. I've heard several synonyms for the alleged same person at true fault for the shipping error, but I think it should be cleared up.

His father hid references to robbery/suffering in his letter to attack me to avoid an assault charge himself. If you think he was mentioning that stuff in defense of his child, then that is fine with me because what matters is how the threat was conveyed by me.

(page 4 of this thread)

Dan -- noone but YOU believes the email from Matt was talking about theft. You are the only one, and if you're going to be paranoid and delusional about it, keep it in your head. You showed the email, and the jury has spoken. He didn't threaten to steal your animals. Period.

PLUS, what "matters" is what we think at this point, otherwise you would have stopped responding to these threads a long time ago. So, your "conveyance" of said threat (I thought Matt conveyed the nonexistent threat -- typing fast again Dan?) doesn't matter anymore, because we're here to pass judgment about the facts/emails. That's why they were posted. Unless there's MORE that Luc is "hiding" that you've already had the chance to post?

 

[Dan Scolaro]

You are correct, your opinion does not matter as it won't change the fact that the buyer harassed and threatened which caused the extension of the guarantee to be terminated.

Dan

 

[Lucille]

You are correct, your opinion does not matter as it won't change the fact that the buyer harassed and threatened which caused the extension of the guarantee to be terminated.

Dan

Dan, there is some implication that the buyer is a kid, a youngster. While that does not excuse his behavior, it surely should not serve as a template for yours.
We are talking a $150 skink plus shipping, is that it? And there was some irregularities with the shipping so it wasn't totally an unreasonable request.

Now, those skimming the thread may see your name and the words 'guarantee terminated' and say, no thanks.

There are sometimes situations which fall into the category of 'the cost of doing business' and surely this is one of them. The shipping delay clouds the issue of the cause of death.

Sellers definitely have to be cautious of buyers who upon occasion may take advantage, but also must be prepared to go the extra mile with good customer service when the issue is not so clear cut, as here.

Sometimes winning the battle, means losing the war. Maybe this time, it might be better to walk away from quibbling, send a replacement, and bask in the knowledge that there are vendors (and customers) here reading that will recognize the difficult choice you had, and next time your name comes up, remember, with approval, that you chose to serve your customer.

 

[Mckenzie_river_reptiles]

"Dan, there is some implication that the buyer is a kid, a youngster. While that does not excuse his behavior, it surely should not serve as a template for yours.
We are talking a $150 skink plus shipping, is that it? And there was some irregularities with the shipping so it wasn't totally an unreasonable request.

Now, those skimming the thread may see your name and the words 'guarantee terminated' and say, no thanks.'

Sir, my behavior is not an issue. I never bugged Dan. I only was trying to get my animal replaced!

 

[Lucille]

Sir, my behavior is not an issue. I never bugged Dan. I only was trying to get my animal replaced!

Where's the duct tape?

Kid, be graciously quiet for a while, while Dan mulls this over.

 

[Dan Scolaro]

Lucille:

Not sure if you read the entire thread, but he never made a request as I offered to go beyond the live arrival guarantee to provide an extra skink if the other died. And for all I knew, the skink was fat and healthy here, and he could have told me it died and I would have sent him one later without caring about or really knowing the truth and he could have ended up with 5 skinks for all I would know.

The real problem is that I made a mistake and went beyond my terms and should have stood firm with them with live arrival guarantee only when delivered on time with express service and ended it at that. My extended guarantee made him take advantage the deal and I asked him many times to stop pressing me and he did not cease his actions and I withdrew the offer. His father emailed and I told his father I would consider the offer when I got the skinks, and the next day both einsteins started a bad boy post on me so go figure their nasty tactics after being told I would reconsider it all. And his father perhaps coached him to press me and could imagine his dad tore into him for the things he charged his son with in that letter which was bs anyway. And you can bet your bottom dollar I would have settled down later and gave him that skink for free. If you have any doubts, ask any of my fine customers who I toss gravid snakes, free extras, and you will find out what a kind of a generous person I really am as the skink or the money means squat to me. Some nice fellow ordered a pair of boas a month ago and I had an extra here and put it in for free. He asked me to make a good boy post and I told him don't bother. It happens here a lot.

But keep in mind, his post and my post is not a quibble over whether he is entitled to another skink. The posts are to report his trend to claim dead/sick animals and then ask for more than what he paid for in the bargain and terms of sale. The decisions have already been made, so I don't know why anyone reads the stuff and thinks that can pick apart a sentence about who said what weeks ago and make it change the fact that his threats/harassment is what caused the terminate the extension of the guarantee.

Dan

 

[Mckenzie_river_reptiles]

Where's the duct tape?

Kid, be graciously quiet for a while, while Dan mulls this over.

Speak Dan.

This thread is bogus as everyone already stated....Luccile what are you talking about. This what Dan shipped me 2.2 skinks, said they were 06's, everything sounds fine. He ships them out to you, but I receive snakes instead. OK "HE" Messed up the shipping labels, but the animals still came three days later and were dehydrated, one being very thin or emaciated! He said OK I'll send you an 08 or 07 and you pay for shipping!

1) He was supposed to send me 06's!!! That in its self is enough for return!
2) One died because of lack of care on his part not mine!
3) I did not Harass Dan I e-mailed him making sure I got my skink replaced. If he sent me an unsexed 08 or 07 then how would that help my breeding project? Maybe three males and a female....Last I checked it is supposed to be the other way around. But you tell me.
And don't bring up "they can't be sexed that young." . Dan sexed them at least he said he did! So ask him how its possible, not me!

I am done with this thread!
Go to Dan Scolaro (Bad Guy) That is the Original thread!

 

[KingBowser]

There are too many unknowns in the story to go either way. I say give the kid his money back and be done with it.

 

[Dan Scolaro]

You received the boxes with the correct names on them and are welcomed to telephone the fedex guy who made a mistake with the lables.

The ad said gender not guaranteed and a friend did his best and you received 2.2 skinks, cb 06 when you paid for 07 skinks at a discount.

And what's with your pretending to forget about the terms of purchase? Who do you think you are kidding? You were never entitled to a replacement skink or anything for that matter, so why are you still jumping up and down like a baby claiming I owe you something still? The guarantee said live arrival when delivered on time. It is short and sweet, so what don't you understand about that? You got live arrival so jump up and down in a happy mode that your skinks arrived alive especially since there was a shipper error and delay. If they all arrived dead, I still would owe you nothing according to the terms of the sale, despite I would do something, so don't worry and be happy with what you received you spoiled little brat. You just need a long time out is all. Calm your temper as ask nicely and you might get a skink for your stocking.

Dan

 

[OriginReptiles]

Refund his money!!!

There are too many unknowns in the story to go either way. I say give the kid his money back and be done with it.

This is what we ALL say. At least I have another vendor to put on my DO NOT BUY FROM list.

 

[MikeCurtin]

One thing I would like everyone involved in this thread to explain to me if the TOS was agreed to by entering into a transaction with Dan Scolaro and the terms of said TOS were met, why is Dan a bad guy? Did I miss something? From what I see:
The buyer saw a deal on cheap skinks and went for it.
Dan provided the skinks(evidently with a shipping error) which arrived alive.
At this point we have a questionable(per the seller) situation on how the buyer handled the newly arrived(and alive at that time) skinks, IE force feeding, per his admission.
One skink died.
Seller agreed to replace the skink against his own TOS.
Buyer wants better free skink than was offered even though seller is not required to do so per the TOS that buyer agreed to when entering into said transaction.

I would like to know what part of this(unless I'm missing something) makes the seller a bad guy? Evidently he's guilty of a boneheaded shipping mistake and may be guilty of a poor TOS, but if the buyer actually read the TOS and didn't agree to it, why did he go through with the deal?? If the skinks arrived alive even with the shipping error, the terms of the TOS were met and if the buyer DID read the TOS then he knows he has no claims, if he did not read the TOS then he really has no claims and would be wise to learn from this in the future.

Adam: We've butted heads recently, but I couldn't have said it better!

Luc: It seems Dan was trying to work with you on a solution even after you admittedly force fed the skink incorrect prey. I've been reading through pages of you bitching about him and calling him names, but have yet to see you suggest any reasonable solution to this (I stress the word reasonable). Seems to me you're acting like a bratty little kid who's stomping his feet till he gets his own way (couldn't you have held your breath instead ?).

Dan: While I don't deal in imports, it was nice to see you attempt to resolve this. The whole changing your mind on the replacement probably wasn't a good idea. Allowing a 15 year old to drag you down to his level was probably a worse one. I say let the offer stand....Luc gets the next available skink as originally offerred....take it or leave it.

 

[Dan Scolaro]

Yea, with all your pennies from your piggy bank saved now, you're going to make me and the other vendors cry from the missed opportunity to provide you some great animals at great prices.

And don't forget to ask mommy before you shake them out.

Dan

 

[Dan Scolaro]

Michael: Some good comments, but I perhaps some details were missed.

Yes, the buyer wore me out and I retracted the offer of the skink. After the father attacked me, I was actually more so concerned for his son being in trouble with the father, so I told the father I would consider another skink in a couple months when I got more.

Did you think they were happy with that offer? Nope.

Then the next day they started a bad boy thread on me.

So do you suggest I print out the bad boy report, whipe my behind with it, and wrap a skink in it and sent it to the kid? That I might can do.

Dan