Although it's not be the be-all and end-all that Stahl would like us to believe, it definitely has to be factored in. I suggest you look into him a bit, then ask yourself how much you could possibly trust anything that doesn't come with concrete proof.
He agreed to ship 2-day - which, in itself, is pretty far from right - then later decided he wanted more money for a different shipping method. Although he states that the buyer agreed to his ex post facto stipulation, I'll remain skeptical until he posts screenshots to corroborate that claim. Thus far, he hasn't presented anything that would even suggest the buyer agreed to send more money.
I think he's made it pretty clear that he has no intentions of issuing a refund. He's even gone as far as [falsely] referring to the $445 payment as a "partial" payment, stating:
Apparently, he's the type of person who feels that the entire payment should be forfeit, if his belated demands aren't met.
At the time the money was sent - as per their initial agreement - it was payment in full. Even if Sloan's wildly unlikely portrayal of events ends up being completely true, he's still not justified in keeping more than a reasonable housing/feeding fee - which I think would only be applicable if it can be shown that the buyer agreed to the amendment before ceasing communications. If the buyer didn't agree to it, that's the point at which he should have been due a full refund.
Although it's not be the be-all and end-all that Stahl would like us to believe, it definitely has to be factored in. I suggest you look into him a bit, then ask yourself how much you could possibly trust anything that doesn't come with concrete proof. [/b]
It does factor in, somewhat … I am not seeing concrete proof either way really.
He agreed to ship 2-day - which, in itself, is pretty far from right - then later decided he wanted more money for a different shipping method. Although he states that the buyer agreed to his ex post facto stipulation, I'll remain skeptical until he posts screenshots to corroborate that claim. Thus far, he hasn't presented anything that would even suggest the buyer agreed to send more money.
That's more or less what this seems to hinge upon. IF the buyer agreed to the amended deal, then suddenly, inexplicably dropped all contact, after having directly expressed no issues with the situation, then the seller looks to be in much stronger position. Given how little sense it would make for the buyer to agree to send more money, then silently pull a disappearing act, I'm operating under the assumption that there must be more communications that we're not being shown. I do have to say that the seller's choice to grossly misrepresent the weather doesn't paint a very flattering picture of his intentions.
However, we only have Evan's word on all of this
I think he's made it pretty clear that he has no intentions of issuing a refund. He's even gone as far as [falsely] referring to the $445 payment as a "partial" payment, stating:
Apparently, he's the type of person who feels that the entire payment should be forfeit, if his belated demands aren't met.
I forgot about that statement.
In truth, neither party commenting is all trustworthy.
Steve should be here, at least to clear up a few details. The fact he isn't, is disconcerting & suspicious.
I have a feeling Evan told him to cease communication & file charges.
While I never really bought into the philosophy that someone should fully clam up once they procure legal representation - that there's much strategic value in keeping actual facts hidden - there have been numerous times when you've gone out of your way to point out that the first thing someone's lawyer would have told them to do is stop replying. Now, when someone seems to be heeding that advice, you want to hold it against him.
himself, the subsequent drop in communication seems like it should make sense to anyone who believes that a lawyer should then do the rest of the talking.This was not your ordinary silence. We cannot ask questions of Steve to determine how credible his story is. Yet Evan is here trying to get a refund, when we do not know whether it was Steve's idea to get a refund, we do not know Steve's wishes for a solution at all so it does not seem quite ethical to have Steve cloaked in silence while Evan is taking his place and making decisions about what should be done.the first thing someone's lawyer would have told them to do is stop replying. Now, when someone seems to be heeding that advice, you want to hold it against him.
Which makes the denunciations in your previous post more than a little premature. There's entirely too much we don't know, so it's foolish to rush to smear his character based completely on silence. While Sloan's history doesn't tell the whole story of any given situation he's in, it seems the epitome of foolhardiness to presume any story he chooses to present makes up the whole truth, especially when he has no apparent interest in posting the communications that really get into the meat of the matter - notice how he stopped off right at the point where it seems the conflict was most likely to begin.
Assuming they actually are business partners, the simple act of Evan trying to get resolution isn't in any way inherently wrong. Steve may very well prefer that he just shut up and let this play out in the background - which might explain why he doesn't seem to have access to any emails that prove his version of events - but being in a partnership would give him a real stake in this. He's repeatedly shown that he's not a reasonable person who'll take other people's thoughts into consideration, in lieu of the knee-jerk reactions that always seem to be his wont.
Just as you're apparently presuming that there isn't one, because Evan said that there is? So long as we're not privy to anything remotely resembling the whole story, it's way early to be spearheading a campaign against the one principal who we don't actually know to be dishonest. Maybe he is just a weak-willing person who removed himself from the situation out of sheer frustration and inability to effectively handle conflict; content to sic his attack dog on Sloan. Of course, there's also the very real possibility that he is pursuing this legally. I don't think there's nearly enough credible information to draw a very reliable inference from his current lack of participation.
Apparently being a business owner, who I suspect may have some money to play with, he may well already have had an attorney on retainer. I'm guessing that all the talk of mail fraud is just Stahl spouting his usual mindless bluster to try to bluff his way into a conclusion.
I'd have to say that it's less odorous than the idea that a buyer would just randomly drop all communication without expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo. When given the choice between the pictures painted by two people with very questionable motives and character, I think that certain aspects of Stahl's are just more plausible than anything Sloan's put forth. He could easily have posted screenshots that would put any debate to rest, but he chose to be sidetracked by someone in the peanut gallery. Yet another context clue that seems to be pretty telling.
Can't help pointing out that you're still avoiding posting the rest of the correspondence. One of Steve's first replies after purchase doesn't have nearly the importance of what he said in the sections of the correspondence that you continue to avoid showing. What you've chosen to show doesn't support your contentions nearly as much as you seem to believe. Looking at your evidence is what's leading to my doubts about you. He said to go ahead and ship them and he'll accept responsibility; you still haven't. That's all that your evidence shows. Seems like what comes after the conversation you did deign to show may be pretty damn important in either proving your case, or showing you to be the degenerate that everyone says you are.
I doubt it'll be as successful as you'd like to believe, but good luck with that.
Even without delving too deeply into things, that's clearly not true. Your screenshot from post 98 includes the top part of a message that can't be read. Considering how much room you had to work with on that screen, I'm wondering if it may be meaningful that you cut it off just where you did. Anyway, since this statement that Steve supposedly made is nowhere in the screenshots you've chosen to present, I guess I have no choice but to take that as a tacit admission that the following statement is a lie:
Let me guess, this conveniently happened over the phone, right?
Much like Stahl, the more worked up you get, the more it tells me I'm onto something that makes you desperately want to deflect by lashing out. On some level, you do realize how pitifully transparent you are, don't you? 
