Reptster.com experience with show sponsorship not good

[The BoidSmith]

Seamus,

The thing is that they are requesting the full amount because they are going to fulfill their end of the deal. They would only be at fault IF once the show is over promises for services to be performed are not kept.

Bottomline: a binding contract was made, one party decides not to follow through and the other requires the fullfillment of the obligations agreed on. If they choose to let David off the hook that's fine, but they are not obliged to and it's their saying not Dave's.

Best

 

[WebSlave]

First and foremost, respect is earned, not handed out as a party favor. Secondly, disagreeing with a detail on a position you're holding and an argument you're espousing isn't a question of respect or disrespect. If you do not want people mentioning that you are behaving as a thief, then don't actively attempt to take something from someone else that you never earned. If you want to demand 100% of the fee for less than 100% of the work, you may as well start tacking on garbage litigious phrases and demands as well... why not another $500 for pain and suffering? Or $2000 for Post Traumatic David Young Syndrome? It's about as reasonable as demanding the money for working his table when you won't be doing it.

Sheesh, Seamus.........

In answer to your last question, I would have to say abso-frickin-lutely!!

Whether verbal or written, witnessed or not, that is exactly what a CONTRACT is! It is an agreement between parties that services and materials would be produced and provided by one party, and the other party would pay for those products and efforts by the first party.

Seamus, your claim apparently is that Kelly would need to actually continue to lose money, as well as the wasted time and effort, not to mention the fact that she would be continuing to appear to support someone who she no longer really wants to before she has a legitimate claim to the loss of revenue she had counted on from a sponsor of her show. The reason, unless I am severely mistaken, that show promoters seek out sponsors is because they are hoping for the FINANCIAL support that sponsors will provide to the show to help pay for the COST of doing such an event. Once someone promises to become a sponsor (a pledge, more or less), quite likely those funds promised are then figured into the budget and then allocated for additional materials and advertising that wouldn't have otherwise been planned on without that money supposedly becoming available.

The arguing point of whether or not Kelly was foolish to TRUST someone is really irrelvant to this discussion. She thought she was dealing with someone that she COULD trust. I believe we have ALL done that at some time in our lives.

But in any event, let's look at an example that may relate to this issue.

Suppose I were a building contractor just getting started in the business, and in an effort to show my goodwill to the local area, I accepted a verbal contact on constructing a small building for one of the apparently upstanding citizens of the area. So I go and pull permits, hire a work crew or three, allocate time from my work schedule, and start buying the materials I will need for the project. So I'm at the point where I have the land cleared, plumbing set in and the slab poured, when I start to get a bit nervous because my latest attempted contacts with the purchaser have gone unanswered. Now according to your logic, Seamus, I guess I am supposed to go ahead and complete construction of that building BEFORE I have a valid claim? If this were taken to court as a civil action (since I don't have a BOI available to me for such things), without a doubt the claim would be for the entire amount of the "contract". It is not only costs that need to be realized in the claim, but also the profit, as well, that was to be realized, because that is WHY I, as the contractor, accepted this "contract" in the first place. In Kelly's situation, the hoped for "profit" was a possible increase of the number of people coming into the door because of the sponsors shown to support the show, but also the potential that more sponsors would sign up once they saw some recognizable names already sponsoring her show, giving it some credibility, and the likelihood that it would be a success. Why? Because it would indicate to people that the show had the FINANCIAL backing needed to survive. That is what a showing of sponsors DOES for a show.

The "contract" was undertaken because a desired result (profit) was the goal and reason for it in the first place. NOT to simply make expenditures to be reimbursed for. I would not be in it to merely break even, and by the other party defaulting on the "contract", damages were realized to my financial situation because of the wasted efforts and time spent. Regardless of whether or not I actually continued to complete the building. Once it became evident that the OP was going to default on the "contract", it would have been foolish to the extreme for me to continue accruing expenses that would have only been putting me further in the hole. Even taking a case to court and winning is no guarantee that the funds will ever materialized from the OP, just as bringing an issue to the BOI certainly does not guarantee that it will get resolved. So the time and effort doing this project was completely wasted when it could have been better utilized pursuing another "contract" from someone else who may possibly have been forthcoming with the promised funds. So not only did I lose actual expenses, but I lost the OPPORTUNITY to have my expended time and efforts be fruitful. So without a doubt, any claim filed against the OP for defaulting on the "contract" would state the TOTAL amount of the "contract" as being due.

Of course, at this point, legal fees and time wasted in the pursuit of filing a claim would likely be added to that orginal "contract" figure. You know, the typical "garbage litigious phrases and demands".

And likewise in THIS case, look at all the time and effort Kelly has pretty much wasted here when she should be spending it to futher promote her show. How much is that time worth to her? And why could she not figure this into the mounting costs that this whole damned affair has cost her? Do you seriously think she WANTED to be spending her time NOW engaged in something like THIS?

So what EXACTLY is Kelly's time worth? How do you figure that? If her efforts were to bring in another 500 people walking in the door of the show, or get three more sponsors, instead of trying to chase down an ex-sponsor, what would that work out to as far as money in the pocket?

In any event, that's my opinion on the matter...... FWIW

 

[deborahbroadus]

Sheesh, Seamus.........

In answer to your last question, I would have to say abso-frickin-lutely!!

Whether verbal or written, witnessed or not, that is exactly what a CONTRACT is! It is an agreement between parties that services and materials would be produced and provided by one party, and the other party would pay for those products and efforts by the first party.

Seamus, your claim apparently is that Kelly would need to actually continue to lose money, as well as the wasted time and effort, not to mention the fact that she would be continuing to appear to support someone who she no longer really wants to before she has a legitimate claim to the loss of revenue she had counted on from a sponsor of her show. The reason, unless I am severely mistaken, that show promoters seek out sponsors is because they are hoping for the FINANCIAL support that sponsors will provide to the show to help pay for the COST of doing such an event. Once someone promises to become a sponsor (a pledge, more or less), quite likely those funds promised are then figured into the budget and then allocated for additional materials and advertising that wouldn't have otherwise been planned on without that money supposedly becoming available.

The arguing point of whether or not Kelly was foolish to TRUST someone is really irrelvant to this discussion. She thought she was dealing with someone that she COULD trust. I believe we have ALL done that at some time in our lives.

But in any event, let's look at an example that may relate to this issue.

Suppose I were a building contractor just getting started in the business, and in an effort to show my goodwill to the local area, I accepted a verbal contact on constructing a small building for one of the apparently upstanding citizens of the area. So I go and pull permits, hire a work crew or three, allocate time from my work schedule, and start buying the materials I will need for the project. So I'm at the point where I have the land cleared, plumbing set in and the slab poured, when I start to get a bit nervous because my latest attempted contacts with the purchaser have gone unanswered. Now according to your logic, Seamus, I guess I am supposed to go ahead and complete construction of that building BEFORE I have a valid claim? If this were taken to court as a civil action (since I don't have a BOI available to me for such things), without a doubt the claim would be for the entire amount of the "contract". It is not only costs that need to be realized in the claim, but also the profit, as well, that was to be realized, because that is WHY I, as the contractor, accepted this "contract" in the first place. In Kelly's situation, the hoped for "profit" was a possible increase of the number of people coming into the door because of the sponsors shown to support the show, but also the potential that more sponsors would sign up once they saw some recognizable names already sponsoring her show, giving it some credibility, and the likelihood that it would be a success. Why? Because it would indicate to people that the show had the FINANCIAL backing needed to survive. That is what a showing of sponsors DOES for a show.

The "contract" was undertaken because a desired result (profit) was the goal and reason for it in the first place. NOT to simply make expenditures to be reimbursed for. I would not be in it to merely break even, and by the other party defaulting on the "contract", damages were realized to my financial situation because of the wasted efforts and time spent. Regardless of whether or not I actually continued to complete the building. Once it became evident that the OP was going to default on the "contract", it would have been foolish to the extreme for me to continue accruing expenses that would have only been putting me further in the hole. Even taking a case to court and winning is no guarantee that the funds will ever materialized from the OP, just as bringing an issue to the BOI certainly does not guarantee that it will get resolved. So the time and effort doing this project was completely wasted when it could have been better utilized pursuing another "contract" from someone else who may possibly have been forthcoming with the promised funds. So not only did I lose actual expenses, but I lost the OPPORTUNITY to have my expended time and efforts be fruitful. So without a doubt, any claim filed against the OP for defaulting on the "contract" would state the TOTAL amount of the "contract" as being due.

Of course, at this point, legal fees and time wasted in the pursuit of filing a claim would likely be added to that orginal "contract" figure. You know, the typical "garbage litigious phrases and demands".

And likewise in THIS case, look at all the time and effort Kelly has pretty much wasted here when she should be spending it to futher promote her show. How much is that time worth to her? And why could she not figure this into the mounting costs that this whole damned affair has cost her? Do you seriously think she WANTED to be spending her time NOW engaged in something like THIS?

So what EXACTLY is Kelly's time worth? How do you figure that? If her efforts were to bring in another 500 people walking in the door of the show, or get three more sponsors, instead of trying to chase down an ex-sponsor, what would that work out to as far as money in the pocket?

In any event, that's my opinion on the matter...... FWIW

You're gonna be SLAMMED with Karma!! Great post!

 

[Seamus Haley]

Suppose I were a building contractor just getting started in the business, and in an effort to show my goodwill to the local area, I accepted a verbal contact on constructing a small building for one of the apparently upstanding citizens of the area. So I go and pull permits, hire a work crew or three, allocate time from my work schedule, and start buying the materials I will need for the project. So I'm at the point where I have the land cleared, plumbing set in and the slab poured, when I start to get a bit nervous because my latest attempted contacts with the purchaser have gone unanswered. Now according to your logic, Seamus, I guess I am supposed to go ahead and complete construction of that building BEFORE I have a valid claim?

A valid claim for what would have been a full amount of a completed project?

To use your example, there are some costs which have been incurred and some which have not- physical materials were purchased in line with the job spec, the work crew was retained and completed a portion of the construction, the permit costs and so on are all there... However to use the same example, the work crew would not be on the job for the entire duration they would have otherwise been retained for, so the same amount was not spent. Inspection costs that would not have been paid until the building was complete would no longer be spent. Personal time that had been scheduled for allocation to that project past a certain point would be spent on other endeavors.

My point has been and continues to be that the Koredeks entered into an arrangement where they were accepting a specific amount of money in return for a specific set of goods and services. They provided many but not all of what they had agreed to and will not be providing the remainder of the services. Clearly it's not a question of fault or lack of effort and attention from their side of the deal but those services still won't be provided and David Young should not be responsible for paying for something that they won't be delivering.

They are the ones who valued their total efforts at $750. Logically if they are providing less than that total effort because they buyer turned into a deadbeat than the portion of work that they have already done is worth something less than the total $750.

Because they had no written record of the services David was going to recieve and no standard for services offered at a specific payment level, there is no absolute proof that can show how much the individually offered services were worth or how much of that $750 worth of work was actually done. Kelly says that offering to physically work a table promoting Reptster at the show was an added bonus that was thrown in as a favor. David maintained that it was the difference between the $250 package he was offered and the $750 package. Kelly herself stated that David specifically cited that he'd be taking the $750 package since someone was willing to work his table. I believe Kelly is honest in her explaination of what was being offered but since nothing was recorded, she can't prove exactly what was said to David when discussing options or verify how he interpreted their discussion.

David's conduct has been abyssmal in every respect and the complaints aren't isolated. However juvenile and idiotic his method of backing out may have been though, he did withdraw his sponsorship. Or was cut off, whichever way someone wants to look at it... He's no longer going to have a table at the show and that space can be alloted to someone else, three weeks is short notice but hardly as bad as it could have been. He's no longer going to benefit from having a person promote his business at that table slot. I just don't agree that he should be held responsible for the costs associated with those services that will not be delivered in a situation where there were no stipulations set forth regarding sponsorship withdrawl. I believe he should be held responsible for the services which were delivered, and thus my line of questions about expenses incurred on his behalf and wanting to know the details of the arrangement that was made.

 

[LakesideBoas]

I'm not as eloquent as you Seamus!

Does the percentage scale someone mentioned earlier sound doable to you? Perhaps if we slide that by Kelly and Matt they can come up with a dollar amount that would be amenable to both them and David.

 

[Seamus Haley]

I'm not as eloquent as you Seamus!

Does the percentage scale someone mentioned earlier sound doable to you? Perhaps if we slide that by Kelly and Matt they can come up with a dollar amount that would be amenable to both them and David.

Wouldn't be my choice to make, but it did sound reasonable to me when John mentioned it.

Kind of academic in many respects since I doubt David Young will be giving them anything for their efforts and expenses- his approach of refusing to communicate isn't the approach of a reasonable or responsible businessperson who had a disagreement about services rendered.

I just felt it should be known exactly how much of a debt he was leaving unsettled.

 

[LakesideBoas]

I fear you are correct in you assessment of David, although having a dollar amount to work with would be a way to button up one of the loose ends here.

If the earth should cease it's course around the sun or said sun stop shining perhaps David might even pay that amount...

 

[The BoidSmith]

I'm not as eloquent as you Seamus!

Does the percentage scale someone mentioned earlier sound doable to you? Perhaps if we slide that by Kelly and Matt they can come up with a dollar amount that would be amenable to both them and David.

Maggie,

I don't see the the scale mentioned precise as it prorrates the costs evenly during a certain time period. Most of the work is probably done initially in the project (brochure design, urchase of supplies, printing, etc.), and it is diluted once you divide it evenly over all the potential time period.

 

[LakesideBoas]

You are right, Bryon, although aside from an itemized list I didn't have another proposal for either party.

You guys are much better at this than I, I'm just good at trying to pet the fur back down!

 

[Suncoast Herpetological]

Maggie,

I don't see the the scale mentioned precise as it prorrates the costs evenly during a certain time period. Most of the work is probably done initially in the project (brochure design, urchase of supplies, printing, etc.), and it is diluted once you divide it evenly over all the potential time period.

I agree that it is not perfect Dan but it is the best idea I could come up with that was somewhat formula based and not entirely subjective.

 

[The BoidSmith]

I agree that it is not perfect Dan but it is the best idea I could come up with that was somewhat formula based and not entirely subjective.

Actually your idea was 100% better than mine which was "0".

 

[LakesideBoas]

Where the heck did I come up with Bryon from? Sorry Dan!

 

[BryonsBoas]

Where the heck did I come up with Bryon from? Sorry Dan!

Because I am of the AWESOME!!! That or I'm so damn cute you can't take your mind off of me. I'll let you pick between the two.

 

[Suncoast Herpetological]

Well apparently none of the thoughts or suggestions that have been tossed out in the last few days hold any appeal for David. He seems to have left the building. It is comforting to know that with over 45,000 views and 700 plus posts, he seems to have a total of three defenders.

Let's play that esteemed roster:

Terry Heuring

Joel Holleman

and last, and most certainly least Alan Belcher.

I find it somehow comforting that this thread will stand as the only testament to Repster's business ethics on a site that a healthy portion of the herp industry tend to check before they do business.

Nothing much more to say on this one.

 

[BryonsBoas]

Since David is still reading this, I would like to ask again for a resolution to be offered in here in black and white for him to read and then allow him to decide. This should not be a problem unless a resolution is not what you were after!
Allen Belcher 706-615-4772

Out of curiosity , to decide what? If its an amount he is OK with or if he will pay it or not? The OP has left the door open for David to utilize just about any form of communication short of smoke signals. David doesn't seem to be getting the idea nor does he seem to care that he left two promoters owed money, not refunding overcharges or following through on a deal that he sought out himself.

Why are some folks still not seeing a pattern?

Stiffing 2 promoters + Stiffing customers using his service + leaving a seller hanging on an animal that he turned away 2 other buyers for David = DEADBEAT.

Math ain't that hard.

 

[MiIguanaLvr]

Out of curiosity , to decide what? If its an amount he is OK with or if he will pay it or not? The OP has left the door open for David to utilize just about any form of communication short of smoke signals. David doesn't seem to be getting the idea nor does he seem to care that he left two promoters owed money, not refunding overcharges or following through on a deal that he sought out himself.

Why are some folks still not seeing a pattern?

Stiffing 2 promoters + Stiffing customers using his service + leaving a seller hanging on an animal that he turned away 2 other buyers for David = DEADBEAT.

Math ain't that hard.

I'm with Bryon. If David is reading this post then he needs to come here himself to find a resolution. I find it immature and unacceptabe for him to send his three friends here to work it out for him. If David is the businessman he is said to be, then handling problems should not be a big deal.
All I am seeing, over and over, is more of the same. Same people saying the same things and nothing gets resolved.
Either David wants to handle this or not. Its really quite simple.

 

[Southern Wolf]

Sadly... this is what Im seeing.

David thinks he is above everyone else.. and thus doesn't have to respond, or to clear things up. He feels the rules dont apply to him... and he can do whatever he wants because he owns RIPster.

Well I have some news for him.... his actions speek louder than words. So any damages done to his Rep.. or the Rep of RIPster... was his own doings.

 

[BamaBeardies]

Getting your wish

Terry,

I hope David is compensating you well because you are doing untold damage to your reputation and might need the extra scratch. I hadn't thought of you as a bad guy before and had even considered buying from you, but you have come off as a complete ass in this thread.

Jamie

Agreed. Terry my family has spent thousands of dollars at your show over the years, and sadly (for you anyways) because of your constant bashing and attitude, I will be making the choice to take my business elsewhere from now on. We are close personal friends with a regular vendor at your show, and I will be passing this thread on to him, so he may get an idea of who he is dealing with.

As for ripster....
I have asked twice now my account be deleted and thus far no response. Maybe the new avitar will get the point across.

 

[Suncoast Herpetological]

Agreed. Terry my family has spent thousands of dollars at your show over the years, and sadly (for you anyways) because of your constant bashing and attitude, I will be making the choice to take my business elsewhere from now on. We are close personal friends with a regular vendor at your show, and I will be passing this thread on to him, so he may get an idea of who he is dealing with.

As for ripster....
I have asked twice now my account be deleted and thus far no response. Maybe the new avitar will get the point across.

I just looked at the frot page of Repster and your new logo is featured prominently. I also noticed something else. While on the page it showed me as a registered member online. Apparently david just deleted my ability to log in and has left me as a registered member. I would suspect that the rest of you who have had your membership "cancelled' have had it done in the same way. Hit their front page and check.


Great way to inflate those stats David.

 

[BamaBeardies]

I would also like to point out David contacted us directly by phone, asking repeatedly (IMO begging) for us (as a company Bama Beardies) to join his site offering several options for advertising on RIPster. After telling him we would join and consider advertising, I for one am glad my wife and myself chose to not advertise or do any business through RIPster at all. I work hard on earning a good reputation for our business and my family, and I am glad I didn't tarnish my reputation by affiliating our business with the likes of David Young.

Jayson Becks