Todd Smith (Deal Gone South)

[Gary Walsch]

Well Rob I would not call that a salmon for sure ! I think that is what you are thinking of though. But you would be amazed at what you can produce with a " HYPO " of any degree ! You will not get the same quality as with a salmon or super salmon but everyone has to start somewhere.

 

[bpc]

Man, if that's hypo I'm rich!!! Greg, you saw that picture before buying that animal correct? I've got to take some pictures of my boas, they must be worth 10k. That IMHO is a slightly above average BCI. If you saw the picture and then sent the money, then no, you can't now not be satisfied with the color and make that part of your refund process. I just can't believe he got away with calling that a hypo.

I apoligize again for the mix-up with the Geneasain thread, I was totally wrong about those dates.

Gary, I've already stated the seller cannot misrepresent the animal. But, as long as the seller is truthful about the animal, they do have every right to have a no refund guarantee. And we, the public, have every right to spend our money with them or not. In this case, either Todd lied, or just had a very different opinion of this animal than Greg does. But Greg did say this was the picture from the add, so he knew what it looked like (at least at some point) when he sent the money. I hate to bash on Greg, but a $1000 bucks w/o even demanding a current pic? Did you inquirE as to how long ago the pic was taken?

 

[Greg Riso]

Brian,

On the one hand you state, "Gary, I've already stated the seller cannot misrepresent the animal." Then on the other hand you state in the same post, "That IMHO is a slightly above average BCI."
Both you and Rob have indicated you don't even feel this is a true hypo. Gary and I seem to feel it is a hypo so there's a 50/50 split saying it is or it isn't. I ask you how do you justify Todd selling it as one, nevertheless a hypo het for anery, if by your own words you don't even think it is a hypo? Because he posted a picture of it in the ad? So in your mind based on the pic it's okay for Todd to pass something off as something it isn't because after all, I saw a pic of it beforehand? That's totally rediculous and absurd.
Another line of rubbish is how you infer that the reason I wanted to return it is based on color. Can you please quote anything I've said to back that up? I merely said that if indeed this isn't a hypo then that's just one more coal added to the fire. I never said I wanted to return the animal because I didn't believe it was a hypo or anything to do with it's color either for that matter.
I'm really getting tired of your inane posts which seem to originate from Todd himself. Am I the only one here who feels there's someone else in the background pulling the strings using you as a sounding board? Keep it up because I'm willing to bet the majority of people here are reading your statements and saying to themselves, my God, I'd never do business with this guy either. I have yet to have heard a single valid point you've made relative to this thread in your continuous attempts to discredit me. Perhaps you're trying to be the hero that took down a good guy but I can tell you it's not going to happen because I've done nothing wrong here.
I think your time and effort would be much better served trying to get the OTHER side of this story to come forward and vindicate himself. You know the guy at the other end of those strings.
It's evident Todd knows he hasn't anything valid to say in support of his actions. Only a fool would sit back and say nothing. I take that back, a guilty party would also say nothing. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to put two and two together yet you keep coming up with 2+2=3.
I'm not going to waste my time responding to anything more you have to say here because it's pretty clear who you're aligned with. If you really desire to do something constructive I highly recommend you spend your time and energy towards doing something useful like getting Todd to take his animal back for a full refund. Only then will this issue be resolved.

 

[bpc]

Greg, I'm sorry you're upset. I've apoligized twice for my mistake over the email dates. I don't have to justify Todd selling anything. I don't even know Todd, and Todd is not part of this post (to date). The point I was making and the question I was asking is why did you pay $1000 for that "hypo." Hypo is a term used to represent the condition of hypomelanism. You saw the picture, read the title, and were satisfied that the animal was a hypo??? If so, great, you now own a "hypo." To me, that animal appears to have a normal amount of melanine.

Greg, I have only put forth hypothetical suggestions, as to what the seller might think, when a customer, who was at first was satisfied with their purchase, later changes his or her mind and wants to return it.

Further Greg, if you'd take a deep breath and actually read what I've wriiten, I've said several times that I too think you deserve a refund. If Todd were writting this, he wouldn't be doing himself much good now would he. I'm sorry that I don't blindly follow the first person to complain. I don't get my jollies being a member of the various "pity parties" which often take place on this board.

Why have I continued to question you? Because, I think YOU made several mistakes during this transaction. I think Todd made some also, and if he ever posts about this I'll let him know as well. But, YOU paid $1000 for an animal w/o seeing a current picture. YOU paid $1000 for an animal w/o asking when the last time it fed was. YOU paid $1000 for a "hypo" having seen a picture of the animal that calls into question whether it's actually even a "hypo." YOU told Todd the animals "arrived alive and in GOOD condition," thereby ended Todd's warrany period (as far as we know). Further, even when Todd gave you options to fix the problem, YOU choose to try and bring about your own agenda and fix the problem your way. Greg, I agree with you that the terms of this deal suck. But YOU got yourself into it, and I'm not here to make you feel better. I'm not here to jump on the "buyer's not happy, therfor the seller sucks" bandwagon. I'm here to help people learn how not to make all these mistakes in the future.

Reply or not, but don't place all the blame elsewhere. It takes two to tango.

 

[Rick Staub]

reply to Brian

I have been following this thread from the beginning. Partly because I have done business with both parties and partly because my name keeps popping up in it, though often misspelled. lol. Brian, while I follow your line of thinking, I feel you have twisted what has been said a little.

You stated
"But, YOU paid $1000 for an animal w/o seeing a current picture. YOU paid $1000 for an animal w/o asking when the last time it fed was. YOU paid $1000 for a "hypo" having seen a picture of the animal that calls into question whether it's actually even a "hypo." YOU told Todd the animals "arrived alive and in GOOD condition," thereby ended Todd's warrany period (as far as we know). Further, even when Todd gave you options to fix the problem, YOU choose to try and bring about your own agenda and fix the problem your way."

IMO, not including a current pic with an ad is misrepresentation. Obviously there is a debate to be made over the definition of current, but certainly the actual health and size of an animal should be reflected in the picture. Expecting someone to ask whether a picture is current is overboard. As a seller, I would become skeptical of a buyer that is so paranoid and so questioning of my integrity as to ask if the pic is current.

Whether or not this animal is a true hypo (carries the co-dominant gene) is irrelevant to this thread and has never been an issue. I have seen some pretty ugly hypos. It is sometimes difficult to tell if one of these ugly hypos actually carries the gene by looking at its dorsal pattern. I usually rely on the red blotches on the sides of the tail to determine this. On the other hand, if Greg had been given proper verification as to the genetics of this animal tracing it back to Jeremy as was indicated, would you still be argueing whether it was a true hypo and Greg made a huge error in purchasing it from that picture?

You have misread or misquoted what happened regarding what was said about the health of this animal and the return option that was offered according to Greg. The animal did arrive alive and possibly in GOOD condition depending on your interpretation, however, it was suppose to be feeding on f/t rats which it is not. Todd made a couple offers in compromise, however, Greg did not turn these down as I interpret what was posted here. Greg came to this board for advice and when Todd learned of this thread he terminated the return offers. I am sure Greg was trying to put pressure on Todd by posting here, but that hardly qualifies as an agenda.

I have never liked the het market. First it quickly deflates the value of a particular line especially with the glut of hets and possible hets that get produced. Second, you have to have a lot of trust in the source that what you are buying actually carries the gene. Several years back I purchased a trio of het albino ball pythons. Four years later after 2 clutches of eggs were hatched without an albino I find that they were not what I bought. Probably possible hets if that.

Rick Staub

 

[bpc]

Let me clarify something, if an animal is called a hypo, it should actually display that characteristic, should it not? This animal was supposed to BE HYPO het for anery, is that right? If Greg thinks that animal is a hypo and he is happy with the color, more power to him. IMHO that animal is not a hypo. Everyone is jumping my case here about my opinion on color, hell, I was just trying to help Greg out with that comment. And ONCE AGAIN I THINK GREG SHOULD GET A REFUND BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF PROOF OF GENETICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think I've typed that 100 times already.

If you know Todd, why don't you contact him and have him reply. He's obviously getting drug through the mud pretty hard here. And frankly he deserves some of that if he won't pony-up the proof of the animal being a het for anery.

I don't think asking when the picture was taken is overboard at all. I sent out a picture just the other day that was 5 months old w/ no mention of when it was taken. Now that picture was just to show what I had, not to sell it, but I think old pictures are probably pretty common on the net.

Finally, I don't believe Greg has shown ANY proof that Todd guaranteed the animal to feed. Yes, we would expect that a $1000 animal should do so. And Todd was probably just as taken aback as Greg was. Todd did address the issue by offering to take the animal back and get it feeding did he not? He also gave Greg a refund option (albeit an expensive one). My wife once bought a brand new car and had to return it the next day because of a problem, do you think they gave her money back? No, they fixed the problem and returned the car. Greg was given that option, he choose not to take it. Call it an agenda, or call it pumpkin pie, he didn't like his options, and came here to pressure Todd or just to get some advice, and now he's out of options and probably can't really do much with anyones advice other than mine. Unless someone can get Todd to change his mind, Greg is stuck w/ a $1000 not so hypo, hypo, that doesn't seem to like rats. But you can bet next time he'll ask those questions up front, as I bet many people reading this thread will. If not, oh well, I tried.

 

[Greg Riso]

Rick,

Thank you for saving me the time and effort of writing everything you posted. Factual, coherent, and competent comments are always welcome here whether they are in my favor or not. I feel I've remained pretty calm up until now. It's pretty tough to remain so when faced with a situation such as this and be told you should have done this or you should have asked that..... As the saying goes hindsight is always 20/20 so it's easy to play armchair quarterback following Sunday's game. I'd like to see this situation rectified. I've mentioned before and will reiterate my statement that all Todd has to do to make this right is take the animal back and refund my money. I don't think it's asking to much for him to take an animal back that he billed as being in perfect health. If this animal merits the $1,000 I was charged then why does he have such an issue taking it back? Is it just foolish pride or does he know the value is not there because this animal is not really from Jeremy Stone or het for anything, and let's not forget not feeding?
This thread never would have happened if Todd had handled the issue in a more reasonable manner. He now has the opportunity to deal with this like a man and pick up the pieces. We can both put this behind us and move on. I think the vast majority of people would only respect him for doing so. I certainly know I would.

 

[Boavoyage]

FOR BRIAN

Well,
I just want to said that I am not surprise when Greg think Brian was Todd's buddy. I am still new with boa, but from the picture, that snake does look like a hypo (w/ the ghost looking color). It could be an ugly hypo, but it's still a hypo. Why don't you (Brian) post one of your "hypo look-a-like" boa picture and let everyone here point of if it's a hypo or not. Not all boa that have red color is hypo.

If you know Todd, why don't you contact him and have him reply. He's obviously getting drug through the mud pretty hard here

What make you think that Todd will reply when he chose to ignore BOI, and refuse to take the animal back?

Finally, I don't believe Greg has shown ANY proof that Todd guaranteed the animal to feed. Yes, we would expect that a $1000 animal should do so

Greg stated that he discussed with Todd on the phone, and Greg should deserve some credit here for what he said. I don't believe that he lied. He's been in the market so long that I don't believe he will spent $1000.00 on the boa without asking if the snake eats. Why? I sold Greg one boa, and he did ask all related questions like how old, feeding, health... He, once, decided to pass on the deal, because he didn't have confidence with my shipping at that time, since I told him that I didn't ship much snake out at that time. I didn't get offend, because he showed me that he concern on the animal (you may say that he concern for what he paid, but to me a seller and a buyer should both have responsible for the animal during the transaction).

Todd did address the issue by offering to take the animal back and get it feeding did he not? He also gave Greg a refund option (albeit an expensive one).

As many people here, I don't expect that I would spend $1000.00 for a snake, which was described healthy and feeding, that need to take some medicine or wait until get it feeding. I want the snake that I paid for. Since the snake was MISREPRESENTED, I don't think Greg has take any loss here. He shall have a full refund.

My wife once bought a brand new car and had to return it the next day because of a problem, do you think they gave her money back? No, they fixed the problem and returned the car.

First, car is different than a living animal. Second, the dealer have a plaque (sp?) that has their policy about once you sign the contract (not even touch the car or drive it), IT'S YOUR CAR. They also read it out loud to you before you sign the contract. Did Todd have one? I don't think so.

But you can bet next time he'll ask those questions up front, as I bet many people reading this thread will. If not, oh well, I tried.

I bet that you still don't want to get out of your shell to face that people here don't buy the crap that you've been spreading. Open your eye, Brian. GREG SHALL HAVE HIS FULL REFUND - THE SNAKE WAS MISREPRESENTED; NOT BECAUSE HE IS NOT A HYPO; IT'S NOT HEALTHY AS DESCRIBED AND THERE IS NO PAPER TO VERIFY THE ANERY GENETIC.

 

[Gary Walsch]

I think that most people here feel pretty much the same on this issue but it really does'nt make a bit of difference unless Todd steps up to the plate and does the right thing. It's up to him if he will do the right thing or not and only time will tell but I will say this ........ Until Todd does right by Greg then Todd will not see a dime of my money, that ought to put him in the poor house ...... lmfao . It is simply the principle involved here, I know I am not very big in this business but there should be a standard by which we all follow. Not only is Todd doing the " wrong thing " but he is doing it to someone in the business who knows better. Imagine what he might do to a novice a someone not knowing very much about this business....... this is how he treats his "friends in the biz" Makes me feel real good about spending money with him.

 

[bpc]

For John

John, since you like cutting and pasting my messages so much, why don't you cut and paste where I said I THINK GREG SHOULD GET A FULL REFUND. Then cut and paste where I said, IF GREG THINKS THAT SNAKE IS A HYPO AND WAS HAPPY WITH THE COLOR, MORE POWER TO HIM.

Now, gee do you really think cars and snakes are different???? Yes they most certainly are, however that doesn't mean that everyone treats the handling of warranties differently. So how do you know Todd's only guarantee wasn't "arrive alive and in good condition." How do you know Greg wasn't aware that his warranty/guarantee/whatever the H you what to call it ended when he picked up the phone and told Todd the snakes "arrived alive and in good condition." He has never said differently. All I'm trying to argue with you people is Todd's right to have a no refund policy, or a 75% refund policy.

I'll say it again for those of you who didn't catch it the first time, if Greg was lied to HE DESERVES A REFUND. If Todd doesn't come through w/ the proof of genetics then GREG DESERVES A REFUND. I am not on anyones side here folks. I am just sick of the "pity parties" we often see on this board. Unfortunately Todd has chosen to wash his hands of this issue and let it die. I would LOVE to hear his side of the story, so that we could balance this puppy out. But, I don't think that is going to happen. I think that is also a big mistake on his part, because as we saw with the Generasian thread, absence is usually constrewed as guilt here.

 

[salito718]

Brian...

are you kidding me?


Greg has continously stated that his reason for wanting a full refund is because the animal is not feeding on F/T rats as stated by todd and that he has never received the papers proving genetics agreed upon at the time of the deal, the deal is not finished.


plain and simple not only did Greg pay for 2 snakes, but with that he also paid for a garantee on Todd's word, which by him would include 2 snakes both feeding on F/t rats and proof of genetics for the hypo...so far what Greg has received are 2 snakes, one which feeds on F/T rats and one non feeding hypo, that is not what the deal involved, plainly and simply, Todd hasnot kept his part of the deal,

its as plain as vanilla ice cream, he paid for one thing, and has completely received another....


not to hard to figure out.........

 

[salito718]

sorry.......

forgot my name




Al Nunez

 

[Gary Walsch]

Just to clear something up Brian ....... I did read what you said about Greg deservinn a refund " IF " Todd does not come through with proof of genetics. And you also said that because he emailed Todd and said the snake arrived ok that would void the warranty there is that correct ? What about the fact that A) Greg had not been told prior the male was used as a breeder and was thin or B) that the pic he used to sell Gregg the snakes was out of date and did not give Gregg a rwal idea of what the snake he was buying looked like, but more of what it used to look like and C) the snake was represented as feeding, not feeding with flagyl !!! Do those things count for anything here or does the fact that Greg sent an email saying it arrived alive release Todd from any further responsibility ? Brian I am not attacking you but you are hardly making sense here man.

 

[MSL]

Brian

Without meaning to be redundant, do you feel the fact that the snake is not feeding to be meaningless? Are you saying that it is OK for a seller to lie and then not be held liable as a result of terms that read/state live arrival only?

Perhaps legally the seller has met his terms, but this is a court of opinion focusing mainly on business ethics. Do you honestly feel that Todd misrepresenting the snake as feeding is not unethical? If it is in your opinion unethical is that OK as long as Todd met his terms?

I'm not being confrontational here I assure you, just attempting to figure out where you're coming from.

As for myself I'd much prefer to deal with someone who is known for their high ethics then someone who gives a liberal guarantee but his/her unethical behavior often enables them to find some poor excuse to weasel out of it. From what I've read in previous threads this later senario is unfortunately not that rare.

Meryl Lechner

 

[Rick Staub]

Meryl

Todd did offer to take the animal back and get it feeding or refund 75% of the price. This may not meet everyones' idea of what his burden of responsibility should be regarding the feeding/not feeding issue, but he did make an offer to correct the situation. Without trying to put words in his mouth, I think this is what Brian was trying to expound on though I think he got a little off course. What I do not understand is why Todd immediately retracted that offer upon hearing about this thread which IMO is unfair. Also his unwillingness to present his side here, but that is his business decision to make.

Since this thread seems to not be getting Todd's attention, we can only hope that Greg's snake will soon start to feed and hopefully in the end will prove to be what he paid for.

Rick Staub

 

[Gary Walsch]

I don't know Rick in my mind a 75% refund or an offer to get a snake that was already supposed to be feeding, feeding without the use of medication ..... mmmmmm let me think .......


I am the customer I was lied to, the snake in question was misrepresented and on top of that no proof of genetics .... I would'nt want the snake in the first place if I was the customer. I would have such a sour taste in my mouth over this deal I would'nt want a free animal, I would just want my money back and I would want to be done with it before it gets worse. Why should I ( If I was the customer here ) accept a 75% refund when I am entitled to 100 % or send back a snake that may never feed correctly or worse what if something happened to that snake while in the care of Todd, what would happen then ? We have all seen proof of his willingness here to do the right thing, he won't even repond to this thread !!! Why would Gregg want to put himself in those shoes as a customer ? Would you ? I would'nt if it were my money I can sure tell you that.

 

[Rick Staub]

I was not defending his refund policy, just pointing out that he had originally offered one and didn't just ignore Greg from the start. The specific facts sometimes get lost in these long threads. I think Todd, as with every seller, should pony up to all the promises he made regarding this sale. If he disagrees with Greg about the specifics of the deal or the remediations, he should detail that in an email or phone conversation with Greg.

 

[MSL]

Rick

Todd did offer to take the animal back and get it feeding or refund 75% of the price. This may not meet everyones' idea of what his burden of responsibility should be regarding the feeding/not feeding issue, but he did make an offer to correct the situation.

I appreciate what you're saying but I would think that since Todd initially misrepresented the animal any offer made should have been one that was also acceptable to Greg. Making an unacceptable offer and then retracting it when Greg sought advise here does not make Todd out to be an ethical seller.

Also his unwillingness to present his side here, but that is his business decision to make.

Unfortunately you're correct, but happily it is our decision whether or not we're willing to deal with Todd. I would think most people reading this thread would not.

we can only hope that Greg's snake will soon start to feed and hopefully in the end will prove to be what he paid for.

I'm sure everyone agrees on this one

Meryl Lechner

 

[MSL]

Rick

I think Todd, as with every seller, should pony up to all the promises he made regarding this sale. If he disagrees with Greg about the specifics of the deal or the remediations, he should detail that in an email or phone conversation with Greg.

I missed this post as I was replying. I agree with you 100% Rick.

Meryl Lechner

 

[bpc]

Guys (and gals), Rick is right, I am trying to get everyone to realize that Todd did make an effort to correct the problem. Greg was given options.

Everyone try and follow this train of thought for a second. And please remember, I am only arguing the health/feeding issue, not the genetics. Imagine you are Todd, you have this snake, and yes, you've used it as a breeder for the last 4-6 weeks. You are finished with the snake and put it up for sale. Greg calls asks what its feeding on and you tell him F/T rats (because that is what it fed on the last time you fed it). He asks you some basic health questions, like has it ever been sick, you answer honestly, no. You discuss terms of shipping and give Greg a guarantee of "live arrival in good condition." You ship the snake. Greg calls/emails says the snake arrived alive and in good condition, you say, great, enjoy the snake, as the terms of your guarantee are now satisfied.

Several days later Greg calls you back and says the snake won't feed and is exhibiting signs of IBD. Now remember, this is a snake that fed great for you, bred for you, and was doing great while in your care. So you say to yourself WTF! He said just 4,5,6 however many days ago the snake was fine and now he thinks it has IBD?!?!? He also says he hasn't been watching it very closely as he's been out of town for a while. But, you give Greg the benefit of the doubt and say, well man I had been breeding it for the last couple of weeks and I didn't feed it before I shipped because I didn't think that would be a good idea. So, tell ya what, here's what we can do. One, you can try giving the snake some Flagyl and see if that perks up his appetite. Or, if you want, send it back, and I'll get it feeding and then return it to you. Greg says no, I want my money back. You think, well I don't really want to take back a snake that may have contracted some illness while in Greg's care. Or you might even say this is a load of crap, he's just got buyers remorse. Either way, you say to Greg, fine, if you just can't keep that animal, I'll take it back, but you're going to compensate me for taking that animal off the market, packaging it, and now taking it back and dealing with whatever problem it now seems to have. So I'll give you a refund of 75%.

Greg then contacts you and says, look, I think your offer is crap, and I just posted all the gory details on this website, and guess what, everyone there now thinks you're a scumbag. So you'd better fix it or else! You say, ya know what Greg, F$% off, and cut your loses.


What I try to do is, look through all these stories we see here and imagine what the other person is thinking. Both parties involved here, seem to have good reputations. I THINK GREG DESERVES A REFUND, but he went about it wrong. He didn't discuss returning the animal up front. I know, I know, everyone will jump in and say, he shouldn't have to. But, you ask these questions when you buy anything else, why does everyone assume you don't have to ask them when dealing animals. I think you do, and I think this situation is a perfect example of why. Had Greg requested a "feeding guarantee" upfront, and discussed what would happen if he wasn't satisfied, I don't think we'd be here now.

I think Todd's offer to get the snake feeding and return it was fair, IF no other "feeding guarantee" was discussed before the sale. And no, in my mind, I don't think saying the snake WAS feeding on rats is a guarantee that it will do so within 10 days, after it has been stuffed in a box, shipped across country, thrown in a new cage, and taken care of in a possibly different manner than it is accustomed to. I also think Todd is entitled to make a 75% refund offer w/o being labeled a "bad guy." As I've said before, that 75% is much better than some other business will do when dealing with live animals.

Todd's refusal to discuss this issue here, is nothing more than that, a refusal. Yes, it pisses us off, because we want to know exactly what he is thinking. And besides, HOW DARE HE IGNORE US, THE GRAND JURY OF THE BOI! WE'LL SHOW HIM, WE'LL MARCH ON THE CASTLE! But right now, all the info we have is what Greg has given us. And Greg, reguardless of how great a guy he is, is biased.

Guys, I've said this before, and I'll say it again, Greg deserves a refund right now because he doesn't have proof of the genetics. He also deserves a refund right now if he was given a "feeding guarantee." But please remember, he was given options, and just because he didn't like those options for the feeding issue, I don't think those options were that out of line.