Info Watch out I got screwed BY Corsi Morphs

[Lucille]

So I just got a text saying he is sending me the snake and not the refund...Well I guess my daughter will just have a Beautiful pet, because I WILL NOT put that animal through shipping again.

What is your version of all this Paypal hanky panky?

 

[acorsi]

Again, the seller offers no proof, which would be easy to do, he has the messages from Paypal. This sounds fishy, once a claim is closed by Paypal it is very, very rarely reopened, one has to petition for an appeal and that is not done in 15 minutes.

"Sounds fishy" Haaa Lucille the voice of reason... You are wrong!!

 

[acorsi]

wish i could make them bigger and easier to read.. Im sure Lucille will have a conspiracy theory about it.. If any one could tell me how to enlarge them I will....

 

[Fangthane]

Thanks for posting again, I think I would do the same.

You'd renege on your promised refund, by coming up with some convoluted, unsubstantiated (and fairly unlikely) story about how PP reopened a claim 15 minutes after having closed the last one?

Angelo, my gut tells me that you are telling the truth. I think Jodie is impulsive on top of flaky and I don't blame you for settling this issue by making her take the snake, especially if she has a buyer for it. Let her deal with her own impulsive purchase, and I say impulsive, because that is how I see her whole family regarding snakes based on what she has said about the 7-8 year old wanting the snakes, then becoming impatient, her bidding and winning an auction while, unbeknownst to her, hubby is out buying snakes as well, etc. This string of paypal claims is just more of the same, IMO.

Best of luck to both of you.

I don't see much reason to take either party's word as gospel. Based on the Bad Guy thread I had previously linked, misrepresentation isn't a new trick for this guy. And let's not forget that that's seemingly the root issue. Out of all of the OP's various justifications, the fact that the snake had undisclosed genetic issues seems to be the most likely, based on the vehement reaction that's shown in her correspondence with Unique Reptiles.

Some clearly think that it's ok to leave out crucial information, and that it's purely the buyer's responsibility to know everything. I disagree, but it is what it is. However, add into it the likelihood that the auction itself violated TOS by not disclosing that the snake was a Pet Only type of animal. Now there are two big strikes, and it seems odd that BOTH would be so easily discounted by the masses.

One person posts a 3rd party anonymous quote on the BOI, and you have 5 people rushing to point it out, but somehow, this TOS violation is just to be ignored? It just seems like an oddly selective application of our apparent love of adhering to TOS.

 

[acorsi]

You'd renege on your promised refund, by coming up with some convoluted, unsubstantiated (and fairly unlikely) story about how PP reopened a claim 15 minutes after having closed the last one?


I don't see much reason to take either party's word as gospel. Based on the Bad Guy thread I had previously linked, misrepresentation isn't a new trick for this guy. And let's not forget that that's seemingly the root issue. Out of all of the OP's various justifications, the fact that the snake had undisclosed genetic issues seems to be the most likely, based on the vehement reaction that's shown in her correspondence with Unique Reptiles.

Some clearly think that it's ok to leave out crucial information, and that it's purely the buyer's responsibility to know everything. I disagree, but it is what it is. However, add into it the likelihood that the auction itself violated TOS by not disclosing that the snake was a Pet Only type of animal. Now there are two big strikes, and it seems odd that BOTH would be so easily discounted by the masses.

One person posts a 3rd party anonymous quote on the BOI, and you have 5 people rushing to point it out, but somehow, this TOS violation is just to be ignored? It just seems like an oddly selective application of our apparent love of adhering to TOS.

Hi Dan nice to see your back!!
"convoluted, unsubstantiated (and fairly unlikely) " They are posted!! LOL

 

[acorsi]

You'd renege on your promised refund, by coming up with some convoluted, unsubstantiated (and fairly unlikely) story about how PP reopened a claim 15 minutes after having closed the last one?


I don't see much reason to take either party's word as gospel. Based on the Bad Guy thread I had previously linked, misrepresentation isn't a new trick for this guy. And let's not forget that that's seemingly the root issue. Out of all of the OP's various justifications, the fact that the snake had undisclosed genetic issues seems to be the most likely, based on the vehement reaction that's shown in her correspondence with Unique Reptiles.

Some clearly think that it's ok to leave out crucial information, and that it's purely the buyer's responsibility to know everything. I disagree, but it is what it is. However, add into it the likelihood that the auction itself violated TOS by not disclosing that the snake was a Pet Only type of animal. Now there are two big strikes, and it seems odd that BOTH would be so easily discounted by the masses.

One person posts a 3rd party anonymous quote on the BOI, and you have 5 people rushing to point it out, but somehow, this TOS violation is just to be ignored? It just seems like an oddly selective application of our apparent love of adhering to TOS.

" undisclosed genetic issues " Dan that's even a reach for you buddy!!

 

[Lucille]

jodie went back on to PayPal and reopened another claim for the same reason putting the money back into PayPal hands to hold.

She did not reopen the claim for the same reason, it is almost impossible to do that. Her second claim was for a different reason. One claim was for an item 'not as described' and one claim appears to be for 'non receipt'.

 

[acorsi]

She did not reopen the claim for the same reason, it is almost impossible to do that. Her second claim was for a different reason. One claim was for an item 'not as described' and one claim appears to be for 'non receipt'.

Lucille you are so right!!! See your not wrong after all!! Feel Better!!

Lets not focus on the point that you in an around and about way called me a lyer then I posted proof and you still have an issue.. The point is after one claim was denied she file another within 15 min..

But with that said I am not going to waste any more time with you or Dan because all you two are doing is witch hunting...

 

[Focal]

You'd renege on your promised refund, by coming up with some convoluted, unsubstantiated (and fairly unlikely) story about how PP reopened a claim 15 minutes after having closed the last one?


I don't see much reason to take either party's word as gospel. Based on the Bad Guy thread I had previously linked, misrepresentation isn't a new trick for this guy. And let's not forget that that's seemingly the root issue. Out of all of the OP's various justifications, the fact that the snake had undisclosed genetic issues seems to be the most likely, based on the vehement reaction that's shown in her correspondence with Unique Reptiles.

Some clearly think that it's ok to leave out crucial information, and that it's purely the buyer's responsibility to know everything. I disagree, but it is what it is. However, add into it the likelihood that the auction itself violated TOS by not disclosing that the snake was a Pet Only type of animal. Now there are two big strikes, and it seems odd that BOTH would be so easily discounted by the masses.

One person posts a 3rd party anonymous quote on the BOI, and you have 5 people rushing to point it out, but somehow, this TOS violation is just to be ignored? It just seems like an oddly selective application of our apparent love of adhering to TOS.

Whoever is possessing Dan's body, I release you DEMON!! BE GONE!!

Dan, you are tripping over your own words. You don't want to take either persons word as gospel, but you keep harping on this one detail that is clearly "He-said, She-said." She said he didn't disclose, he said he did. I think we are past that point.

 

[Fangthane]

" undisclosed genetic issues " Dan that's even a reach for you buddy!!

http://www.facebook.com/groups/299382426741229/members/

- "Pets Only" - It is not our intention to forbid any animal from being auctioned. However if you are auctioning off "deformed" animals please list them as "Pets Only" and provide full disclosure as to what the issue is. Please do not try to auction these types of animals off as any thing other than a pet.

No "reaching" at all, here, pal. Always interesting to note how shady people always give the most important imformation over the phone, when there's absolutely no way to verify it. Regardless of whether or not you actually did disclose the Desert female breeding issues over the phone (which I highly doubt), you didn't state it in your auction. That, in and of itself, is all that really matters. Your initial violation of the auction page's TOS, negates any responsibility the OP had to complete the transaction, I believe. You obviously knew that it couldn't be bred, which puts it firmly in the "pets only" catagory, and which puts you in the position of having to disclose the issue. Which you didn't, at least not in a any way which would put you in compliance with the TOS that you agreed to by posting your auction.

 

[Focal]

Lucille you are so right!!! See your not wrong after all!! Feel Better!!

Lets not focus on the point that you in an around and about way called me a lyer then I posted proof and you still have an issue.. The point is after one claim was denied she file another within 15 min..

But with that said I am not going to waste any more time with you or Dan because all you two are doing is witch hunting...

Angelo, can you provide any proof that she was pursuing a PayPal claim while under the belief that a refund check was in the mail. I was under the belief this whole time that a check was in the mail. If she thought the same, but was still pursuing a claim with PayPal, well, I think that changes her title again.

Of course, this might not be the case, but I'm lost why she is claiming a refund from PayPal when she should be expecting a check.

 

[Fangthane]

Whoever is possessing Dan's body, I release you DEMON!! BE GONE!!

Dan, you are tripping over your own words. You don't want to take either persons word as gospel, but you keep harping on this one detail that is clearly "He-said, She-said." She said he didn't disclose, he said he did. I think we are past that point.

I'm not tripping over anything, no matter how much your lack of comprehension may lead you to believe that I am. If you have some reason to want to put the "hush" on, and sweep lies under the rug, that's on you, and says something about you, I think. He's still "harping" on the premise that she he made her aware of it, so should that not actively be contested, when it seems contextually unlikely?

Neither party can be taken at face value. However, by my interpretation of the context clues, the OP's strong reaction to being informed, by Unique, about the fact that the Desert female can't be bred, lends very strong credence to the likelihood that she never was made aware of that issue. Which contradicts your boy's claims that he told her over the phone.

 

[Lucille]

Angelo, can you provide any proof that she was pursuing a PayPal claim while under the belief that a refund check was in the mail. I was under the belief this whole time that a check was in the mail. If she thought the same, but was still pursuing a claim with PayPal, well, I think that changes her title again.

Of course, this might not be the case, but I'm lost why she is claiming a refund from PayPal when she should be expecting a check.

I agree. Instead of getting snarky, a good timeline with proof would really help here.

 

[acorsi]

Angelo, can you provide any proof that she was pursuing a PayPal claim while under the belief that a refund check was in the mail. I was under the belief this whole time that a check was in the mail. If she thought the same, but was still pursuing a claim with PayPal, well, I think that changes her title again.

Of course, this might not be the case, but I'm lost why she is claiming a refund from PayPal when she should be expecting a check.

Nick,
She filed her first claim the same day as this thread...

 

[acorsi]

I agree. Instead of getting snarky, a good timeline with proof would really help here.

"Snarky" I LOVE THAT!! " a good timeline with proof would really help here" I will whip that up for you with all my free time Lucille!! Help with what exactly??? Its over and done with!!

You and Dan should hang out together and find something fun to do besides posting on the BOI!! You too are taking this a bit to serious!!!

 

[radera5]

You'd renege on your promised refund, by coming up with some convoluted, unsubstantiated (and fairly unlikely) story about how PP reopened a claim 15 minutes after having closed the last one?


I don't see much reason to take either party's word as gospel. Based on the Bad Guy thread I had previously linked, misrepresentation isn't a new trick for this guy. And let's not forget that that's seemingly the root issue. Out of all of the OP's various justifications, the fact that the snake had undisclosed genetic issues seems to be the most likely, based on the vehement reaction that's shown in her correspondence with Unique Reptiles.

Some clearly think that it's ok to leave out crucial information, and that it's purely the buyer's responsibility to know everything. I disagree, but it is what it is. However, add into it the likelihood that the auction itself violated TOS by not disclosing that the snake was a Pet Only type of animal. Now there are two big strikes, and it seems odd that BOTH would be so easily discounted by the masses.

One person posts a 3rd party anonymous quote on the BOI, and you have 5 people rushing to point it out, but somehow, this TOS violation is just to be ignored? It just seems like an oddly selective application of our apparent love of adhering to TOS.

No sir, I would renege if what he said happened really happened. To open dispute after dispute, would kinda tie my hands as far as what I could do. I wouldn't care what they were opened for, if I am truly going to send a refund and can't...then what? But it's all going to come down to timing. Was she told a refund was coming and still opened a dispute? Were her disputes just bad timing. This whole thing is a mess.

I will say that I agree with Dan on the Auction page's TOS. I'm utterly confused why any seller doesn't add the info to their postings, but even more confused on why on the auction page where it is written that you must disclose all health issues it still was not.

We could debate all day on who thinks it's a health issue, or deformity, but the fact is they don't breed and when they try, many times there are serious consequences. So, of course we are going to all get tied up on specific wording and opinions on whether to add the info or not when really it should be obvious IMO. Spiders with a serious wobble should be noted, kinks should be noted, duckbills, and Desert female infertility. Instead though, we can all just hope for the best and keep having to read these types of threads and tell newbies sorry for not googleing "Desert Ball Python".

I've heard alot of people say you should research every morph you buy. Now I'm not saying there aren't people who do that, but I am saying are you serious?!?! lol. I just bought a Fire, no research. A few Mojave's before that, no research. The next morph I buy, I won't be googling. I guess I'm just asking for trouble.
Would I advise not to do research? NO!!! But I do think saying every buyer should research every morph they buy every time they buy an animal is reaching.

Have some decency. If a buyer is truly asking for a refund because of an issue like this, give them the refund and move on. It's so beautiful, everyone is saying the snake was well worth the money so sell it again.

It's not like it's a complete bogus request. If it was anything other then a Desert who can NOT breed I would probably agree with most of the others. I guess I just feel differently when it very could have been an accident and avoidable. The Buyer did get just crazy with stuff, not sure I'd want to do business with her but still.

 

[Fangthane]

"Snarky" I LOVE THAT!! " a good timeline with proof would really help here" I will whip that up for you with all my free time Lucille!! Help with what exactly??? Its over and done with!!

You and Dan should hang out together and find something fun to do besides posting on the BOI!! You too are taking this a bit to serious!!!

There was a time when I'd have taken that as an insult. However, I've spent enough time reading the BOI to know that for what it is. Scammer speak that's loosely translated to: "Stop paying such close attention that you'll notice my lies". If I must be lumped in with someone, I'd MUCH rather it be Lucille, than the likes of you.

 

[KORBIN5895]

I'm not tripping over anything, no matter how much your lack of comprehension may lead you to believe that I am. If you have some reason to want to put the "hush" on, and sweep lies under the rug, that's on you, and says something about you, I think. He's still "harping" on the premise that she he made her aware of it, so should that not actively be contested, when it seems contextually unlikely?

Neither party can be taken at face value. However, by my interpretation of the context clues, the OP's strong reaction to being informed, by Unique, about the fact that the Desert female can't be bred, lends very strong credence to the likelihood that she never was made aware of that issue. Which contradicts your boy's claims that he told her over the phone.

My interpretation of that same text is she was trying to pull the wool over unique's eyes and when he "informed" her she acted angry and indignant to cover her own deceit.

Don't forget that she has been pro oven in several lies in this thread so far. I just wouldn't trust either of them.

 

[wes smith]

FB TOS

"Pets Only" - It is not our intention to forbid any animal from being auctioned. However if you are auctioning off "deformed" animals please list them as "Pets Only" and provide full disclosure as to what the issue is. Please do not try to auction these types of animals off as any thing other than a pet.

The TOS listed mentions nothing about "breedable"(sp?) animals, only "deformed" animals. I guess this TOS is open to interpretation.....
Is an animal normally classified as "deformed" simply because it cannot breed?

 

[Willow]

Angelo...that attitude you are dipping into is going to do you more harm than good =/ Take a breath and try not to make things worst for yourself for stupid reasons. Just a thought.