It's not the LFS fault

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by Dmitry
For most LFSs the overhead costs are extremely high, and their profits tend to be rather low. So for purely practical purposes they tend to employ young people with varying degrees of knowledge. If they were to hire only real experts - they would have to pay them much more. And chances are - they'd be out of business in no time. It'd be great if every LFS store had marine biologists working for them, but let's face it - it ain't gonna happen. When you go in to buy something you really need to know what you're buying and looking at or looking for. I used to work at Tower Records and people would come in and ask for things they knew nothing about and expect us to read their minds. And if a nun came in and decided to buy "The Rapture" (a soft core ---- flick) because she thought it was a religious epic - it's not my responsibility to police her purchases. How many times have we seen people post here with a photo of their new aquisition with the question: What is it? So many people jump on the LFS for selling that Moorish Idol to a guy with a 10 gallon tank. But really it's the fault of the customer. LFSs are business, as someone already pointed out, not Zoos or Aquariums. Their responsibilities are to provide goods to paying customers. One can only hope that customers know what the hell they're talking about.
Incidentally, all the LFS stores I've been to (chains and private) have books and reference guides for fish and corals. The least a customer can do it crack one of those books open in the store. LFS employees are not babysitters.
Well this about sums it up... Well said!!!

 

[srfisher17]

Originally Posted by crimzy
This is partially inaccurate. A privately owned business CAN do business with whomever they choose, or refuse to do so, as long as their selection is not based on race, gender, national origin, disability, etc (a protected class).
That's true regarding Federal criminal law; but civil court is another matter.The bottom line is that anyone can sue anyone; and a sympathetic judge and/or jury can decide.Everyone knows they can be nuts. I'm really just tweaking this whole subject; as I often do when we start assigning almost human rights to fish. I care about my fish and do the best I can for them; but they are still fish. When it comes down to "rights" what's the diff between the Scotts Fairy Wrasse in my living room and the halibut I had for dinner last night? One is prettier to me; but ask the fisherman selling the halibut.

 

[aquaknight]

Originally Posted by Dmitry
By this comparison - if you buy a toy with led paint on it imported from China, it's your fault. I mean, if you're going to play with a toy you should know something about what goes into the making of this toy and what harms it can cause.
Sort of yea, what about a toy for a 2yo, you wouldn't at least look at the toy's box to see if it had anything small that they could choke on?
You kinda took my point backwards. That toy company/sub-contractors ARE being held responsible for that lead paint. Like a LFS should be at least be somewhat responsible for selling expert only/fish with needs.
As I mentioned early on, a checklist for buying a fish is ridiclous. But, for someone to flip out when you ask them what tank they have, may be they shouldn't be in the hobby. Hell, on SWF.com they want you to verify when you buy 2 angels they won't be going in the same tank. I don't thinking any has a problem with that. Nothing obsure, just some basic stuff.

 

[rainmkr07]

Originally Posted by srfisher17
That's true regarding Federal criminal law; but civil court is another matter.The bottom line is that anyone can sue anyone; and a sympathetic judge and/or jury can decide.
This is not accurate. You can't just sue anyone for any reason, even though that's what society seems to think. There must be a cause of action, and there must be damages. What would the damages be for not selling a $30 fish? None. Therefore you couldn't sue them.

 

[rainmkr07]

Originally Posted by crimzy
This is partially inaccurate. A privately owned business CAN do business with whomever they choose, or refuse to do so, as long as their selection is not based on race, gender, national origin, disability, etc (a protected class).
Correct.

 

[srfisher17]

Originally Posted by rainmkr07
This is not accurate. You can't just sue anyone for any reason, even though that's what society seems to think. There must be a cause of action, and there must be damages. What would the damages be for not selling a $30 fish? None. Therefore you couldn't sue them.
I'm not saying that the lawsuit is ever going to see the light of day; but I can file a suit against anyone, claiming whatever weak grounds I have (violation of the public trust because you have a public license will get it past the court clerk)) and claiming any made up damages, mental anguish is a good catch all--and the system will take it from there. Most Small Claims Courts are even easier. We read of frivolous lawsuits every day. To file suit is one thing, to be able to get it to trial is another. We're really splitting hairs; but I always get this way when it appears that some on this forum think they should have a right to decide who can own what fish; and under what circumstances...at least that's the way I read some of this stuff.

 

[dmitry]

Originally Posted by AquaKnight
Sort of yea, what about a toy for a 2yo, you wouldn't at least look at the toy's box to see if it had anything small that they could choke on?
You kinda took my point backwards. That toy company/sub-contractors ARE being held responsible for that lead paint. Like a LFS should be at least be somewhat responsible for selling expert only/fish with needs.
As I mentioned early on, a checklist for buying a fish is ridiclous. But, for someone to flip out when you ask them what tank they have, may be they shouldn't be in the hobby. Hell, on SWF.com they want you to verify when you buy 2 angels they won't be going in the same tank. I don't thinking any has a problem with that. Nothing obsure, just some basic stuff.
Interesting that you did not address the rest of my post.
I don't know that I can make my point any clearer: if you pay a LFS to maintain your tank, then you should expect them to not put any inappropriate animal into it. But if, like almost everyone, you pay them and take fish home - then all you are paying them for is to provide you with healthy livestock. A LFS's responsibility ends there. What kind of tank you put that fish into is not their responsibility and it is none of their business. If I want to take that Tang home and eat it - I will. The store can deny me that sale, but that's where I may choose to go to a lawyer. As a willing and paying customer I have certain rights. Where that lawsuit ends up is irrelevant: I've taken the store to court and cost them money. If every other person took them to court - they'd be out of business in no time. Let me repeat: LFS are not Zoos. LFS's responsibility is to provide healthy livestock to consumers. Period, as far as I'm concerned. How a LFS selling or not selling fish is like fixing breaks on a car is just beyond my comprehension. Any legitimate business can refuse to do business with a customer, but there better be a darn good and very transparent reason for that. And me refusing to tell you how big my aquarium is does not qualify as a good reason until the government passes a law that no Tang shall be kept in a tank smaller than 150 gallons.
It is rather astonishing to me that we live in a society where people refuse to take responsibility for their actions and decisions. We collectively prefer to blame someone else. And go to sleep with clear consciences. We put a Moorish Idol into a 10 gallon tank and prefer to blame the LFS for selling it to us instead of looking at ourselves as the villains who actually put that fish into that tank. How about we start with the (wo)men in the mirror?

 

[kderider]

I find this whole thread very interesting. I think you CAN compare the LFS to any other service oriented business, and yes, healthcare has become service oriented. I work in an operating room in NY. If, as a CUSTOMER, a physician is not happy with our service, or the help he has in the OR is not knowledgable, he will take his business across town to the other facility. I think the LFS has a certain responsibility to provide educated information about the product that they sell. As stated before, they can refuse to sell livestock if they think you can't properly care for it. Just the same as a dog breeder can ask for references, or visit your house before selling you a puppy. Saying that you would sue a LFS for refusal to sell you livestock, sounds ignorant.
Just my 2 cents. I don't post here alot, but read almost all of the threads, and have learned tons from everyone here. This is a daily stop in my web surfing!!

 

[aquaknight]

Originally Posted by Dmitry
Interesting that you did not address the rest of my post.
I don't know that I can make my point any clearer: if you pay a LFS to maintain your tank, then you should expect them to not put any inappropriate animal into it. But if, like almost everyone, you pay them and take fish home - then all you are paying them for is to provide you with healthy livestock. A LFS's responsibility ends there. What kind of tank you put that fish into is not their responsibility and it is none of their business. If I want to take that Tang home and eat it - I will. The store can deny me that sale, but that's where I may choose to go to a lawyer. As a willing and paying customer I have certain rights. Where that lawsuit ends up is irrelevant: I've taken the store to court and cost them money. If every other person took them to court - they'd be out of business in no time. Let me repeat: LFS are not Zoos. LFS's responsibility is to provide healthy livestock to consumers. Period, as far as I'm concerned. How a LFS selling or not selling fish is like fixing breaks on a car is just beyond my comprehension. Any legitimate business can refuse to do business with a customer, but there better be a darn good and very transparent reason for that. And me refusing to tell you how big my aquarium is does not qualify as a good reason until the government passes a law that no Tang shall be kept in a tank smaller than 150 gallons.
It is rather astonishing to me that we live in a society where people refuse to take responsibility for their actions and decisions. We collectively prefer to blame someone else. And go to sleep with clear consciences. We put a Moorish Idol into a 10 gallon tank and prefer to blame the LFS for selling it to us instead of looking at ourselves as the villains who actually put that fish into that tank. How about we start with the (wo)men in the mirror?
I didn't answer the rest of your post because it was the same 5 examples, 5 different ways.
I have no problem with the LFS selling to whoever they want. If they don't ask you anything when you buy a Moorish Idol fine, if they ask and you tell you have 220gal when it's a 20gal, fine. If you tell them you have 10gal and a Sohal tang in going in, and they beg/plead for you not to, but you still buy it, be the scum of the earth, but fine. My original problem was the LFS who "OK'ED" them putting a Moorish into a 10gal. Imagine someone telling a new 14 year old mother that doesn't have a clue on how to raise a child that she could kept her new baby in a closet. Who would be more the monster then? My view on the Moorish sitution was that the customer asked a question, and the LFS gave horrid advise. That led me to post that LFS's should be responsible in that sitution. No?
I have always been in favor of personal responsiblity. Look at my 2nd post, while our views on motoring might differ, they're pretty close. It's just that between someone that doesn't know and somehow who does/should know, they are the much bigger criminal.

 

[dmitry]

I don't know of anyone who put a Moorish Idol into a 10 gallon tank. It was a hypothetical statement. If asked, LFS should provide accurate information. But they have no responsibility or obligation to find out where you are putting a Moorish Idol you said you want to buy. And until there are laws stating what kind of tanks certain fish go in - you can do as you please. This is why a comparison to a dog breeder is not accurate. We have a major athlete prosecuted for dog fighting. I've never seen anyone prosecuted to placing 2 Triggers into the same tank and watch them fight to the death. And comparing a fish with a baby - give me a break.
The other examples in my previous post are more of the same, but I don't see you arguing that when your sink is broken you should fix it yourself instead of getting a plumber.
As far as hospitals - a patient can go to another hospital, yes. But you're not getting the point!! It can't be any more simpler: A customer can go to another store. The hospital, however, can not refuse medical assistance to a patient. And a store can not refuse servicing a customer with a valid credit card unless there's a mighty good reason for it. Otherwise, with a customer determined and ticked off enough, there will be a lawsuit. I think it's just common sense and it really is silly to keep repeating this point when people keeping misstating it because for some odd reason it's not seeping through.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by Dmitry
I don't know of anyone who put a Moorish Idol into a 10 gallon tank. It was a hypothetical statement. If asked, LFS should provide accurate information. But they have no responsibility or obligation to find out where you are putting a Moorish Idol you said you want to buy. And until there are laws stating what kind of tanks certain fish go in - you can do as you please. This is why a comparison to a dog breeder is not accurate. We have a major athlete prosecuted for dog fighting. I've never seen anyone prosecuted to placing 2 Triggers into the same tank and watch them fight to the death. And comparing a fish with a baby - give me a break.
The other examples in my previous post are more of the same, but I don't see you arguing that when your sink is broken you should fix it yourself instead of getting a plumber.
As far as hospitals - a patient can go to another hospital, yes. But you're not getting the point!! It can't be any more simpler: A customer can go to another store. The hospital, however, can not refuse medical assistance to a patient. And a store can not refuse servicing a customer with a valid credit card unless there's a mighty good reason for it. Otherwise, with a customer determined and ticked off enough, there will be a lawsuit. I think it's just common sense and it really is silly to keep repeating this point when people keeping misstating it because for some odd reason it's not seeping through.

I don't see the common sense in the statement that just because a store owner refuses to simply sell an item to a paying customer, he can be held liable and be sued. If I own a store, no matter what I'm selling, I have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If I decide to not sell my merchadise but to a selected few, I will most likely go out of business, since I'm spending all my cash on inventory, and not recouping my money with sales. What's next, I get sued because I try to sell a bag of potato chips for $20, when my competitor is selling them for a buck? It's called FREE ENTERPRISE. If you don't like my business practices, don't shop at my store. If I went with your mentality, half the stores in this country would be getting sued because some customer wasn't happy with their service. That's why the majority of small businesses hang those signs in their store "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". I see them all the time, don't you?

 

[srfisher17]

I'm not even close to saying that's the way it should be; I'm saying that's the way it is. Go to your County Court Clerks office and ask to see a listing of suits filed last month--scary!

 

[aquaknight]

Originally Posted by Dmitry
I don't know of anyone who put a Moorish Idol into a 10 gallon tank. It was a hypothetical statement. If asked, LFS should provide accurate information. But they have no responsibility or obligation to find out where you are putting a Moorish Idol you said you want to buy. And until there are laws stating what kind of tanks certain fish go in - you can do as you please. This is why a comparison to a dog breeder is not accurate. We have a major athlete prosecuted for dog fighting. I've never seen anyone prosecuted to placing 2 Triggers into the same tank and watch them fight to the death. And comparing a fish with a baby - give me a break.
The other examples in my previous post are more of the same, but I don't see you arguing that when your sink is broken you should fix it yourself instead of getting a plumber.
As far as hospitals - a patient can go to another hospital, yes. But you're not getting the point!! It can't be any more simpler: A customer can go to another store. The hospital, however, can not refuse medical assistance to a patient. And a store can not refuse servicing a customer with a valid credit card unless there's a mighty good reason for it. Otherwise, with a customer determined and ticked off enough, there will be a lawsuit. I think it's just common sense and it really is silly to keep repeating this point when people keeping misstating it because for some odd reason it's not seeping through.

Did you read my last post?
Originally Posted by Aquaknight
If you tell them you have 10gal and a Sohal tang in going in, and they beg/plead for you not to, but you still buy it, be the scum of the earth, but fine.
We are the saying the same thing. No where in that last post did I say anywhere that a LFS should refuse service (though I am on the side they should be able to they so please). My issue, as I've stated 3 or so times is when they give horrid advise knowingly. I have been told a yellow tang is fine for my 29gal by a LFS. What if I didn't know any better?
As far as knowing how to fix the sink, you should be able to. That way, you have general knowledge about plumbing and in a worst case scenario, you can handle the sitution, i.e. if you have a fish tank disaster with the plumbing you can fix. As far as whetever actually do, is up to you. Just like for cars. If you happened to have car trouble in a bad part of town, you're able to fix the car enough to get back on the road, instead of the waiting for a tow/repair/etc and getting robbed/shot/etc.

 

[rudedog40]

I think the bottom line to this issue, is none of us has the right to judge what is right or wrong when deciding what's ethical in regards to which fish go into which tank. If you ask me, unless every fish in your tank is agricultured/tank-bred, you're just as guilty for putting ANY fish in your tank, as a LFS is guilty/liable for selling ANY fish to any aquarist, no matter what the compatibility/size issues are. Who became the Ultimate Saltwater Aquarium God that determined what the acceptable tank size was for a particular breed of fish? -- "Thou shalt not house any species of Tang in a tank less than 6 feet long", "Volitan Lions are deemed too big for a 55 gallon tank".
95% of the fish we keep in our tank were swimming in a vast and wide-open ocean maybe a week prior to us purchasing them. All of a sudden, it's OK to stick them in a 6 ft. x 2 ft. x 3 ft. tank, because some Marine Expert says is OK to do so. Now you can take the argument that many of the species we keep have just a small range in the wild where they live. Many varieties of clowns don't venture more than a few hundred yards from where they were born. However, everyone here agrees that Tangs, Wrasses, Groupers, etc. are open swimmers, and their range can be miles from where they were born. But the Tang Police vilify anyone who puts that species in a 55 gallon because "They need more swimming space". Are you actually going to tell me that an extra 2 feet is going to make that much of a difference to a wild Blue Hippo, who a week prior had thousands of miles of area to swim in? If you tell me yes, then I think you're all being a little bit hypocritical.

 

[dmitry]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
I don't see the common sense in the statement that just because a store owner refuses to simply sell an item to a paying customer, he can be held liable and be sued. If I own a store, no matter what I'm selling, I have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If I decide to not sell my merchadise but to a selected few, I will most likely go out of business, since I'm spending all my cash on inventory, and not recouping my money with sales. What's next, I get sued because I try to sell a bag of potato chips for $20, when my competitor is selling them for a buck? It's called FREE ENTERPRISE. If you don't like my business practices, don't shop at my store. If I went with your mentality, half the stores in this country would be getting sued because some customer wasn't happy with their service. That's why the majority of small businesses hang those signs in their store "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". I see them all the time, don't you?
Something's not getting through to you - I won't comment on why. The price of an item is not relevant. Bad service is not relevant. What is relevant is that a store can not refuse to sell an item to a customer without a good reason. FREE ENTERPRISE does not allow discrimination. Once upon a time you could refuse to sell to a black person - but that changed. And if you refuse to sell me an item because I'm black, even if you don't tell me that's why you refuse to do it, I'm going to sue your pants off.
And there are circumstances under which you couldn't sell a bag of potato chips for $20. It's called price gouging. The end, carry on, good bye.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by Dmitry
Something's not getting through to you - I won't comment on why. The price of an item is not relevant. Bad service is not relevant. What is relevant is that a store can not refuse to sell an item to a customer without a good reason. FREE ENTERPRISE does not allow discrimination. Once upon a time you could refuse to sell to a black person - but that changed. And if you refuse to sell me an item because I'm black, even if you don't tell me that's why you refuse to do it, I'm going to sue your pants off.
And there are circumstances under which you couldn't sell a bag of potato chips for $20. It's called price gouging. The end, carry on, good bye.

I guess you have your theories on this, and I have mine. What is apparent is that you have no issues about sueing someone simply because you can. That's why we need national Tort reform to stop all these ridiculous frivoulous lawsuits. It's a sad day when you own your own business and have to worry about someone walking into your establishment and possibly calling some ambulance chaser to sue you simply because you didn't give them what they wanted.

 

[crimzy]

Just so EVERYONE knows, no attorney will file a lawsuit against any LFS for a nonsense reason such as "they refused my business" unless it is based on race, gender, disability, etc. People seem to think that attorneys will take on a case to sue someone who looks at them wrong. This does not happen and there is no need for tort reform to accomplish this result. Even though attorneys may be the scum of the earth, they are concerned about one thing: making money. Filing a frivolous case, especially on a contingency fee basis, will cause the attorney to lose money. Moreover even if a frivolous case was filed, it will be quickly resolved with an immediate summary disposition motion and the filer may be subjected to sanctions.
While it is easy to think that the courts are a free for all with no boundaries, this is completely untrue. If you think this is the case, call your local "ambulance chaser" and tell him a story about being refused in your LFS based on tank size. See if you can find anyone to take on such a ridiculous case.
It is a common misconception that people can be sued for having brown hair and blue eyes, or for asking their neighbor to turn down their loud music. Anyone with experience in the courts will tell you that this is nonsense. Tort reform is not necessary because the problem is not in the courts but in the perception by people who don't know any better. In fact, if you take a look at the appellate courts' decisions nationally, you will see the trend towards conservativism. They are making it very tough on civil Plaintiffs and criminal Defendants. Just an FYI.

 

[rainmkr07]

Originally Posted by Dmitry
What is relevant is that a store can not refuse to sell an item to a customer without a good reason.
WRONG.

 

[rainmkr07]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Even though attorneys may be the scum of the earth
Ouch. Why would you say such an awful thing like this?

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by rainmkr07
Ouch. Why would you say such an awful thing like this?
I've dealt with some really bad seeds. This is said tongue-in-cheek... in part.