Darin Chappell
Senior Hillbilly Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Messages
- 1,838
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 60
- Location
- Rogersville, MO (Ozark Mts.)
Christina,
You said that you decided not to send these torts back because Rose had told you that she intended to resell them, and you thought it was wrong for her to do so because they were obviously sick? Well, that's very admirable, but here are a few things that bother me about that concept:
1) You told Rose that you were satisfied with the hatchlings as they were when you received them. "I don't have a problem keeping them I just want to get them into the vet." "The resp. infection is nothing, cold air and shipping is stressful on any animal and it has nothing to do with the shipper or the supplier. you guys did a great job on the packing . . ." "The only thing I am worried about so far is the one blowin bubbles but I have experience with them so He should be fine. they are in great hands, and came from a great place." "Oh no, I wasnt suggesting you sent out sick animals. they are great . . ." "They will be fine, don't worry. you did nothing wrong."
Every one of those quotations are from emails you sent to Rose on 3/31/04 after she told you not to soak the animals. You bent over backwards to tell her that Rose was NOT at fault for anything at all. She packed them properly,but they got cold. You said that was the way it was, and you went on to tell her that you could handle this resp infection ... it was no big deal, and the torts were in your capable hands; Rose didn't need to worry about anything.
Now, SHOULD you have done that? I don't know. I didn't see the torts, so I have no frame of judgment. But the fact is that you did write those things. Now, look at it from Rose's perspective for a moment. Either you were lying when you wrote those things, or you are lying now. Either you WERE satisfied with the deal as it was on that day, or you WERE NOT, but you cannot have it both ways. Maybe you were simply telling little white lies at first to spare Rose's feelings or to leave the door open for future deals, but regardless, why should Rose trust you now?
2) You also said that you did not get back to Rose any sooner about the animal being so sick, because you had too much going on with your family, school, and the daily necessities of life. I understand that completely. However, how is that any of Rose's problem?
I mean, her policy (which you quoted from her TOS) is that if you do not tell her you want a replacement or credit within one hour after receiving your animals, she offers no further compensation. The fact that your life was too busy to comply with that requirement is certainly not Rose's fault, is it?
Further, when you say that your life was too busy to deal with this issue, what are you saying about the importance of this deal to you? I mean, you chastise Rose and insinuate that she is in it only for the money, but then tell everyone here that your family life and your college career was more important to you than complying with Rose's business practice requirements? Can you not see that Rose has a life too? Do you suspect that she has not had difficulties arise in her day to day existence? Why do think she in business in the first place, if not to provide for her own daily necessities? I'm sorry, but that part of your "defense" holds no water with me whatsoever.
3) You say that you did not place the tort in a warm bath until AFTER it had been under the heat lamp for several hours. I have to admit that I don't know that much about tort husbandry, but both of you now seem to agree that the heat lamps should have been used first. I have not seen where Rose ever agreed that a warm soak was then in order, but she specifically said that you should not have placed cold torts in a warm soak, or they would get sick.
Again, you say you did not do that, but how is Rose supposed to know this? You wrote, "Just recieved them, One is missing a front nail and they are all very very cold still, so were going to do some warm soaks and off to the vet for meds(they all seam to have resp. infections.)" You say absolutley nothing about using heat lamps first. You say that they were "very, very cold" and, because of that condition, you would "do some warm soaks."
Rose told you that this should NOT be done at all, or you would make the animals sick. You say you didn't, but again, given the way you appear to have already contradicted yourself on a number of points, how can Rose possibly believe that now?
4) Finally, You say that you cannot give Rose the information for which she has asked about the vet, because of various technical difficiencies. You have offered to mail the report to her, though. However, unless I am missing something, all Rose asked for was the contact information to your vet, then SHE would ask the vet what was done and in what condition the animals were seen.
Is it not possible for you to email her your vet's name and phone number? That seems very reasonable to me, especially since Rose has to know that vets tend to see sickness in any animal (that's how they get paid, after all), and they also tend to see things the way their client sees them.
All in all, Christina, I don't think you're owed a penny here. If Rose determines to give you a refund, in part or in whole, or if she offers you a credit or replacement, it will be solely from the goodness of her heart, and not because of some business ethic that I can see. She met her obligations to you when she offered you a refund on the animal. You said you didn't want to ship it back, so she was off the hook right there. However, she even went further by saying that if you could just get her in touch with your vet to confirm the animal was sick, she would still give you the full $45.00. You have neglected to follow through thus far.
I can see nothing else that Rose could now do for you beyond what she offered. You're on your own with those vet bills, in my opinion.
Rose,
I think that the mark of a "Good Guy/Gal" here on the BOI is how he/she deals with a problem once it arises. It is usually by sheer accident that one does not have any shipping problems over a long period of time, so it is only once the bottom has fallen out on a deal that I believe we can see the true character of an individual. I believe you have shown yours to be admirable.
However, I think you did make a mistake in your packaging practice on those torts. I do not believe that animals that are temp sensative like all herps (especially torts) are, should ever be shipped in uninsulated boxes. Either to keep the cold out or to keep the cool in, the insulated boxes are the ONLY way to go on shipping herps.
To utilize a second hand cricket box that is not only not insulated, but not even fully enclosed, for three young torts in early spring, in the the northern part of the country no less(!) ... well, I think that's just asking for trouble. You say that you have had no other problems? That's good, but it is not because the packing was adequate. You've just been lucky.
Even so, it's all a learning process. I think you need to change your packaging practices, but I cannot fault you at all for how you handled yourself, after the problem arose. You were very professional, and you ought to be commended for that.
P.S.
As I was writing this (I am terribly long-winded!), Christina posted again. She wrote:
"Facts: you shipped poorly YOUR site has a guarentee you refuse to obide by, in result of poor shipping 3 sulcata hatchlings got sick,2 are better 1 is in very very poor conditions. Those are the facts! no mud slinging no acting like children! I let you know within 5 min of recieving them they were sick. you have a guarentee and refuse to obide by it. BOTTOM LINE!"
However, the same person wrote about the same deal:
" . . .I just wanted to update you and let you know they came we are very excited and glad they arrived safely. We were just looking at your current stock on other animals and am looking forward to buying from you again in the very near future."
And
"The resp. infection is nothing, cold air and shipping is stressful on any animal and it has nothing to do with the shipper or the supplier. you guys did a great job on the packing and raising them thus far."
And
"Oh no, I wasnt suggesting you sent out sick animals. they are great, just got cold that will do it to any animal, or human for that matter. you guys did a great job. They will be fine, don't worry. you did nothing wrong."
I'm reminded of that old Game Show ... "Will the REAL Christina, please stand up?"
You said that you decided not to send these torts back because Rose had told you that she intended to resell them, and you thought it was wrong for her to do so because they were obviously sick? Well, that's very admirable, but here are a few things that bother me about that concept:
1) You told Rose that you were satisfied with the hatchlings as they were when you received them. "I don't have a problem keeping them I just want to get them into the vet." "The resp. infection is nothing, cold air and shipping is stressful on any animal and it has nothing to do with the shipper or the supplier. you guys did a great job on the packing . . ." "The only thing I am worried about so far is the one blowin bubbles but I have experience with them so He should be fine. they are in great hands, and came from a great place." "Oh no, I wasnt suggesting you sent out sick animals. they are great . . ." "They will be fine, don't worry. you did nothing wrong."
Every one of those quotations are from emails you sent to Rose on 3/31/04 after she told you not to soak the animals. You bent over backwards to tell her that Rose was NOT at fault for anything at all. She packed them properly,but they got cold. You said that was the way it was, and you went on to tell her that you could handle this resp infection ... it was no big deal, and the torts were in your capable hands; Rose didn't need to worry about anything.
Now, SHOULD you have done that? I don't know. I didn't see the torts, so I have no frame of judgment. But the fact is that you did write those things. Now, look at it from Rose's perspective for a moment. Either you were lying when you wrote those things, or you are lying now. Either you WERE satisfied with the deal as it was on that day, or you WERE NOT, but you cannot have it both ways. Maybe you were simply telling little white lies at first to spare Rose's feelings or to leave the door open for future deals, but regardless, why should Rose trust you now?
2) You also said that you did not get back to Rose any sooner about the animal being so sick, because you had too much going on with your family, school, and the daily necessities of life. I understand that completely. However, how is that any of Rose's problem?
I mean, her policy (which you quoted from her TOS) is that if you do not tell her you want a replacement or credit within one hour after receiving your animals, she offers no further compensation. The fact that your life was too busy to comply with that requirement is certainly not Rose's fault, is it?
Further, when you say that your life was too busy to deal with this issue, what are you saying about the importance of this deal to you? I mean, you chastise Rose and insinuate that she is in it only for the money, but then tell everyone here that your family life and your college career was more important to you than complying with Rose's business practice requirements? Can you not see that Rose has a life too? Do you suspect that she has not had difficulties arise in her day to day existence? Why do think she in business in the first place, if not to provide for her own daily necessities? I'm sorry, but that part of your "defense" holds no water with me whatsoever.
3) You say that you did not place the tort in a warm bath until AFTER it had been under the heat lamp for several hours. I have to admit that I don't know that much about tort husbandry, but both of you now seem to agree that the heat lamps should have been used first. I have not seen where Rose ever agreed that a warm soak was then in order, but she specifically said that you should not have placed cold torts in a warm soak, or they would get sick.
Again, you say you did not do that, but how is Rose supposed to know this? You wrote, "Just recieved them, One is missing a front nail and they are all very very cold still, so were going to do some warm soaks and off to the vet for meds(they all seam to have resp. infections.)" You say absolutley nothing about using heat lamps first. You say that they were "very, very cold" and, because of that condition, you would "do some warm soaks."
Rose told you that this should NOT be done at all, or you would make the animals sick. You say you didn't, but again, given the way you appear to have already contradicted yourself on a number of points, how can Rose possibly believe that now?
4) Finally, You say that you cannot give Rose the information for which she has asked about the vet, because of various technical difficiencies. You have offered to mail the report to her, though. However, unless I am missing something, all Rose asked for was the contact information to your vet, then SHE would ask the vet what was done and in what condition the animals were seen.
Is it not possible for you to email her your vet's name and phone number? That seems very reasonable to me, especially since Rose has to know that vets tend to see sickness in any animal (that's how they get paid, after all), and they also tend to see things the way their client sees them.
All in all, Christina, I don't think you're owed a penny here. If Rose determines to give you a refund, in part or in whole, or if she offers you a credit or replacement, it will be solely from the goodness of her heart, and not because of some business ethic that I can see. She met her obligations to you when she offered you a refund on the animal. You said you didn't want to ship it back, so she was off the hook right there. However, she even went further by saying that if you could just get her in touch with your vet to confirm the animal was sick, she would still give you the full $45.00. You have neglected to follow through thus far.
I can see nothing else that Rose could now do for you beyond what she offered. You're on your own with those vet bills, in my opinion.
Rose,
I think that the mark of a "Good Guy/Gal" here on the BOI is how he/she deals with a problem once it arises. It is usually by sheer accident that one does not have any shipping problems over a long period of time, so it is only once the bottom has fallen out on a deal that I believe we can see the true character of an individual. I believe you have shown yours to be admirable.
However, I think you did make a mistake in your packaging practice on those torts. I do not believe that animals that are temp sensative like all herps (especially torts) are, should ever be shipped in uninsulated boxes. Either to keep the cold out or to keep the cool in, the insulated boxes are the ONLY way to go on shipping herps.
To utilize a second hand cricket box that is not only not insulated, but not even fully enclosed, for three young torts in early spring, in the the northern part of the country no less(!) ... well, I think that's just asking for trouble. You say that you have had no other problems? That's good, but it is not because the packing was adequate. You've just been lucky.
Even so, it's all a learning process. I think you need to change your packaging practices, but I cannot fault you at all for how you handled yourself, after the problem arose. You were very professional, and you ought to be commended for that.
P.S.
As I was writing this (I am terribly long-winded!), Christina posted again. She wrote:
"Facts: you shipped poorly YOUR site has a guarentee you refuse to obide by, in result of poor shipping 3 sulcata hatchlings got sick,2 are better 1 is in very very poor conditions. Those are the facts! no mud slinging no acting like children! I let you know within 5 min of recieving them they were sick. you have a guarentee and refuse to obide by it. BOTTOM LINE!"
However, the same person wrote about the same deal:
" . . .I just wanted to update you and let you know they came we are very excited and glad they arrived safely. We were just looking at your current stock on other animals and am looking forward to buying from you again in the very near future."
And
"The resp. infection is nothing, cold air and shipping is stressful on any animal and it has nothing to do with the shipper or the supplier. you guys did a great job on the packing and raising them thus far."
And
"Oh no, I wasnt suggesting you sent out sick animals. they are great, just got cold that will do it to any animal, or human for that matter. you guys did a great job. They will be fine, don't worry. you did nothing wrong."
I'm reminded of that old Game Show ... "Will the REAL Christina, please stand up?"