Mark Miller of Loco-Lizards Liar and a Thief

[Greg Riso]

Preexisting Condition

Jason, in your case I doubt if the animal you bought from Mark developed a tumor in a matter of weeks so in my mind the condition was probably there when you bought it. If that's the case, I disagree that Mark shouldn't have been held accountable for it. How did he "take care of you" in that situation, over the phone no doubt?

 

[Greg Riso]

Misquoted

Sorry, my above posted quote should have read, "make it right" rather than take care of you. Seems to be a common theme and makes me wonder how many other make it rights are out there.

 

[Griz]

Jason, normally I would agree with much of what you wrote. However, the premise that you and I disagree on is over why the animal was taken back. Based upon the information provided here, as well as a phone call with John, I firmly believe that Mark purposely utilized the phone services so that John would have nothing concrete to present. If you will go back and read Mark's other bad guy thread you will see he did that there as well.

In addition, it was only AFTER the animal died that Mark finally submitted something concrete via email stating that he would not honor his word. Again Mark, if you sent emails prior July then I would like to see them (headers too).

Jason, regardless of your past business dealings with Mark, you have got to see right through this. The BS meter is way beyond red at this point.

Griz

 

[KCRD.com]

Greg,
In the case of the Ball Python, I have no doubt that Mark would have made it right, my point is that there is no way he or I could have known that the snake would develop this problem, and for me to hold him accountable for something that happened several weeks after the transaction is bogus. If that was the case, then where does the liability stop? Is that to say that if I bought a snake from Mark and a year later it was diagnosed with Liver Failure I should hold him responsible for it? My point is the buyer has to take some ownership of the animal after the TOS is complete no matter if the seller offers to try to help or not.

Griz,
While you and I agree on a lot of things on this forum, I will respectfully disagree with you on this subject. I feel like I know Mark pretty well and for me to say that I think that he purposely conducted the business over the phone to prevent a "paper trail" would not only be wrong but down right foolish of me. I have done A LOT of business over the phone with out the use of email, not to prevent a trail, but just because that's how the agreements go down. If I feel like a contract needs to be put together then I make it a point to put stipulations in writing. It's not only unfair but also unlawful to make an assumption that Mark did conducted business over the phone to prevent any trail so that he couldn't be held responsible.

I just don't see him doing this, no matter what one other thread says, I think his number of good business dealings far out weigh his lone documented bad dealing. Remember that a lot of the users of this forum use it only to point out the bad deals that go down, if there was a thread for every good deal that happened I think we would be looking at this from a different perspective.

At this point it's the buyer's word against the seller's word, and to assume that the buyer is always right is wrong. I was taught a long time ago during my early years of retail management that a customer is always right until they are wrong. I am a firm believer in that. I also believe in taking care of your customers as well, especially since they are the ones that pay our bills, but there are times when you have to look out for the well being of your business, and in this case I feel that Mark should not have to give away the farm on a deal that took place several months ago. Mark's contract of limitations was completed several months ago.

If I own a Home Theater shop and I sell a new HDTV to a customer with a standard 30 day guarantee, and 4 months later he tells me he's having problems with it and can't get the manufacturer to fix the issue, and I tell the customer to bring the TV back to me to so that I can try to get the problem resolved and a couple months later I find out that I can't, that doesn't make me responsible for giving my customer a new replacement TV. My terms of sale were over at 30 days, just because I tool the TV back to try to get the problem resolved doesn't then make me liable.

 

[Ed Clark]

Jason, I have to disagree with you on this! Sellers hide behind unfair TOS just to get out of doing the right thing.

How far should a seller stand behind a snake that someone paid $6500.00 for, a long time. alot longer than some of these TOS that I have come across.

An honest and smart seller will stand behind a snake that their customer is having problems with...after all you may get someone once on a deal like this. but take care of them and treat them right and you will have earned a customer for life.

Marks only concern was to take Johns cash and he has not been fair at all in this deal. time for Mark to come to some sort of a resolution with John and put this to rest.

at what point during a sale does the seller's responsibility stop and the owner's begin? I say at the end of the seller's TOS, and this shouldn't be voided out if the seller is trying to help get the animal back on track well after the TOS has expired. I think expecting a seller to compensate you for an animal that you bought several weeks ago, let alone several months ago is asinine and just not fair.

 

[Griz]

Once again Jason, you and I disagree on the context in which the animal was received back. Instead of me typing out yet again why I think Mark's lying I will simply refer you back to my previous posts. My gut instincts are rarely wrong. What I find interesting is that since I started posting on this thread that people have contacted me privately to relay their stories. Again, I would encourage people to keep their ears open as there is other information out there pertaining to Marks business dealings that helps shed some light on this particular instance.

Griz

 

[romad119]

Jason, I have to disagree with you on this! Sellers hide behind unfair TOS just to get out of doing the right thing.

How far should a seller stand behind a snake that someone paid $6500.00 for, a long time. alot longer than some of these TOS that I have come across.

An honest and smart seller will stand behind a snake that their customer is having problems with...after all you may get someone once on a deal like this. but take care of them and treat them right and you will have earned a customer for life.

Marks only concern was to take Johns cash and he has not been fair at all in this deal. time for Mark to come to some sort of a resolution with John and put this to rest.

Price doesn't matter, and unfair TOS? It's alot longer a period then many others. After the two week period the seller was done. Anything above and beyond was extra from the terms that were agreed upon.

IMO the snake shouldn't have been up for sale to begin with since it was already in the breeding process. That's a tangent thought though.

 

[romad119]

Once again Jason, you and I disagree on the context in which the animal was received back. Instead of me typing out yet again why I think Mark's lying I will simply refer you back to my previous posts. My gut instincts are rarely wrong. What I find interesting is that since I started posting on this thread that people have contacted me privately to relay their stories. Again, I would encourage people to keep their ears open as there is other information out there pertaining to Marks business dealings that helps shed some light on this particular instance.

Griz

Griz,

Who is saying what? This is bordering on anonymous.

 

[reagorfu]

i have never heard anyhting bad about mark miller before. this is the first, but he is liable for the snake that he said he would take care of.

he took the snake back and it died after two months. even if the snake was sent back to him to get back into healthy breeding conditions it is his responsability for the health of the snake. if it dies than it is on him. this is a no brainer here. i do not see why john, being a breeder and all, would need to send it back to get it healthy, but even IF that is what happened than make is still responsible for the snake. it died so he needs to send john a refund of the full 6,500 or a credit.

the TOS is kinda stupid if you ask me. i have always heard that you need to wait 2 weeks before you even try the first feeding. how are you going to know that something is wrong in 2 weeks? that is 1 feeding, the 1st feeding attempt.

 

[KCRD.com]

I give no credibility to anonymous gossip. I hate when people don't have the bolts to stand up and back what the're saying. If you are going to slander someone then you better darn well have the spine to both support what you are saying and stand up for your words.

Until one stands up and makes their person known; to me it's as if the comments were never said. This is a very serious issue that could potentially hurt Mark's business; that being said if people want to run their mouth about him, show some proof.

There's not many of us that do this on a full time scale, but in this case I know that Mark is in the same boat as I am, and when people make false accusations that affect not only his business but also his well being and his family's finances then it becomes a VERY serious thing. To some of us this is more than just a hobby, it's a livelihood.

 

[KCRD.com]

he took the snake back and it died after two months. even if the snake was sent back to him to get back into healthy breeding conditions it is his responsibility for the health of the snake. if it dies than it is on him. this is a no brainer here. i do not see why john, being a breeder and all, would need to send it back to get it healthy, but even IF that is what happened than make is still responsible for the snake. it died so he needs to send john a refund of the full 6,500 or a credit.

the TOS is kinda stupid if you ask me. i have always heard that you need to wait 2 weeks before you even try the first feeding. how are you going to know that something is wrong in 2 weeks? that is 1 feeding, the 1st feeding attempt.

First of all I am a breeder, and there are times when I know I have done literally every thing I know possible to get a snake on track. If a fellow experienced breeder tells me that he wants to try some of his tricks of the trade to help me out as a last ditch effort then I sure as hell am not going to hold him responsible for my animal that is doomed for sure death anyway.

As far as the TOS thing goes, these are in place for a reason. Business security, there are obviously some people out there that feel as if there are no limitations on a seller's responsibility and that the seller should always be responsible for the animals they sell no matter how long ago they sold the animal.

Any experienced snake keeper knows that the wait 2 weeks rule is bogus. I don't know anyone that actually does this, God knows I don't and I've never had any problems for doing so.

The bottom line is that Mark was trying to help a fellow breeder out, who just happened to be a good customer. The fact that he is being crucified for this act of kindness is a load of crap. THE SNAKE WAS GONE FOR FOUR MONTHS!

I spoke with Mark about this situation earlier this afternoon and because of some actions taken part by the other party he will not be posting on this thread again until this is decided by the court system. All I can say is that physical threats are not the way to get things fixed.

I know if this was me, I would be implying the "I wish" factor. "I wish" that the threats would be carried out by the other party. It'd be much easier to take care of that way.

 

[johnmartino]

First of all you are right this is very serious, and as is my familys finances as well. Thus I am very upset to be out $6500. What physical threat???? Please show me some proof. Talk about slander and such!! I said i would proceed in any way possible to get this situation rectified. Including looking into getting legal representation. As of yet nothing has been filed. I was hoping Mark would be a man of his word and honor our agreement. If you really think that I would send an animal back to Mark to get it better for me than you are extremley naive not to mention gullible at best. I am breeder to. For many, many years now. I was breeding animals back in the 80's. There was an oral aggreement in place by Mark for me to send him back the snake and be compensated accordingly. MARK ASKED FOR HIM BACK. As far as Mark avoiding posting because of legal reasons, sounds like BOI avoidance if you ask me. I am not going to post. I am going to lie and then put my head in the sand and hope it all goes away. You can imply the "I wish" factor all you want. "I wish" I never did business with Mark Miller. " I wish" he would do the right thing as was said by him verbatim too many times to count. "I wish" I wasnt out $6500?

 

[Wolfy-hound]

If you will say that Mark only did the phone calls to make sure there was no paper trail, then doesn't that mean it could be equally true of John?
Why didn't John get a paper trail?
This type of argument was had a while back over what point a seller's responsibilty ends. How do we know that the animal regurged, was taken away after a short period of non-breeding and then had perfect quiet conditions? What if he continued attempted breeding?
Mark took the snake back, and he should have had in writing what his responsibilites were to be. But John shouldn't have sent the snake back without something in writing too.
It has nothing to do with $6500.00 or TOS at this point. That part is true. Mark's TOS were stated clearly, and John accepted them.
The fact is neither party seems to have any proof of what agreement was reached as to whether the snake was returned for a refund, credit, or just to try to help it.
We can speculate as to why Mark would take the snake back, or why John would send it back, but that's all technically nothing more than gossip. Mark states he took it back to get it feeding. John says he sent the snake back for a refund/credit. Neither have proof, so it seems like the courts will have to decide for them.
I would not hold it against Mark that he did not refund money, nor give credit. I don't know what he agreed to or didn't agree to.
I would not hold it against John that the snake didn't eat, as I don't know if the snake was ill, or it just didn't like the ju-ju at his house. Sometimes poo happens and a animal just won't eat.

Without proof, it's all speculation. The quarentine issue is seperate, and I personally don't like the idea of non-quarentining an animal, but it has nothing to do with the deal or no deal.
I personally wouldn't ever send an animal back for refund or credit without some sort of email stating what I expected. I also wouldn't have taken back an animal just to get it eating, without knowing whether it was ill, not eating or even contagious.
Theresa baker

 

[reagorfu]

First of all I am a breeder, and there are times when I know I have done literally every thing I know possible to get a snake on track. If a fellow experienced breeder tells me that he wants to try some of his tricks of the trade to help me out as a last ditch effort then I sure as hell am not going to hold him responsible for my animal that is doomed for sure death anyway.

As far as the TOS thing goes, these are in place for a reason. Business security, there are obviously some people out there that feel as if there are no limitations on a seller's responsibility and that the seller should always be responsible for the animals they sell no matter how long ago they sold the animal.

Any experienced snake keeper knows that the wait 2 weeks rule is bogus. I don't know anyone that actually does this, God knows I don't and I've never had any problems for doing so.

The bottom line is that Mark was trying to help a fellow breeder out, who just happened to be a good customer. The fact that he is being crucified for this act of kindness is a load of crap. THE SNAKE WAS GONE FOR FOUR MONTHS!

I spoke with Mark about this situation earlier this afternoon and because of some actions taken part by the other party he will not be posting on this thread again until this is decided by the court system. All I can say is that physical threats are not the way to get things fixed.

I know if this was me, I would be implying the "I wish" factor. "I wish" that the threats would be carried out by the other party. It'd be much easier to take care of that way.

I know several people who say the 2-week rule is not bogus; it is used as safety for the animal just in case it is stressed. I guess you think that quarantine is bogus too.

Anyhow, if I give someone a 6,500 dollar anything for them to replace or fix, it had better be fixed or replaced. That is that. And can you talk about a discussion with a third party here on the BOI? I thought that was not allowed. Just wondering, because I thought that they had to defend themselves

 

[johnmartino]

Theresa, you are right on many points. Anything could have been said. I KNOW what was said. I am guilty of also being naive enough to trust a man to his word. I knew how it would look yet i chose to come on here anyway. At worst i just wanted my story to be heard. Think of it what you will. I have since changed my practices. I had several great litters this year with people wanting me to hold some. ALL agreements are now written, faxed or done via email. Lesson learned. An expensive one, but one i will absorb and keep on moving forward. I would encourage anyone doing business with whomever to get everything in writing. It could save you allot of heartache.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

I think it's pretty simple at this point. In post number one...

We then agreed on a replacement animal where I would have to send him more animals. I was hesitant to send two more animals to Mark but I figured I at least would have another breeder animal.

Post 19...

When john and i were talkiong about our upcoming breeding season i mentioned i still had a bloody salmon female that would be ready to breed this fall, John showed great interest in getting this animal, I told him if he wanted to work out a trade for some of his sunglows I might be willing to make him a good deal on the female blood if we could agree on a decent price on the sunglows and i would give him a discount on the female bloody salmon so he didnt have to eat such a huge loss on the blood male. Not because i felt It was my fault the animal was not doing well, but simply to offer good service to a previously good customer.

Mark Miller

You can't blame John for being upset about the male Blood. $6500 is a lot of dough. And there was obviously discussion about replacement animals, as shown above. That needs to be followed through IMO.

But you John, should have kept him aware as of the first regurge. That plainly cancels the live guarantee as stated. Any discussion about replacements was FAR beyond his TOS.

Seems just following through with the original plan would put this thing right. Let this thing rest, because I really don't see a bad guy with such a simple resolution at hand.

My 2¢
Rick

 

[KelliH]

I'm on the fence about who is right or wrong here, but I strongly that both of these men are to blame. These two supposed Boa constrictor experts possibly let this poor animal die because for some ludicrous reason neither one of them felt like taking the time or spending the money to take this snake to a vet. Shame on both of you.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

I'm on the fence about who is right or wrong here, but I strongly that both of these men are to blame. These two supposed Boa constrictor experts possibly let this poor animal die because for some ludicrous reason neither one of them felt like taking the time or spending the money to take this snake to a vet. Shame on both of you.

I can't argue that one bit. Just feel it's been covered.

 

[KelliH]

Just feel it's been covered.

That doesn't mean I can't express my opinion on the matter though.
In fact, I feel it is the most important detail of the entire story and needs to be stressed.

 

[Wolfy-hound]

I'm glad that you learned to get everything in writing. I had an expensive lesson myself and get stuff in writing too now. I hope that lesson gets through to everyone reading.
Even if it's a good friend, get it in writing, it could save the freindship when there is any doubt later.
I agree Kelli. When the animal is near death, it should make a trip to the vet definitely! It's a $6500.oo animal, and how much does a check-up cost?
Not that it's definite that any vet would have been able to diagnose or treat the animal successfully, but it would lend credance to treating the animal yourself if you've also gone the 'extra' mile and taken it to the supposed experts too.
Theresa Baker