Who's fault is it?

[FutureInterest]

So I'm at a LFS today scouting out the wrasses... when I overhear a customer talking with a very nice salesperson there about anenomes and clowns. He's just there for information on anenomes it seems, but ends up buying at least 2 maroon clowns. Beautiful specimans. While she's off bagging them up I asked him about his tank... apparently its been setup for 2 weeks and these are his first fish ever. I ask him if his cycle is done... and he's clueless... Nitrates, Nitrites? What's that? No I haven't checked my ammonia yet. I begin to give him some warnings, but the salesperson is back in a flash and is now directing him to the anenome tank for his next apparent purchase. So we say our goodbyes and I leave the store with some modest purchases and the nagging feeling that everything he just bought is about to die...

Now, I'm not sure if its the salesperson that should have asked questions about his setup and give solid advise or if its the buyer's fault for barely doing any research. I wanted to tell him that you can't just throw 2 stunningly beautiful maroons in a tank together if you expect them not to try and kill each other... I wanted to tell him to hold off on buying anything alive till he verifies his parameters... I wanted to tell him getting an anenome at this stage would kill a beautiful animal and burn 100 dollars in his wallet... It just seems like bad business to me to not inform a customer about what they need to do at this point. Then again I feel like the customer has an equal amount of responsibility in keeping themselves informed before they purchase... I dunno... Perhaps in this specific situation it was my fault... Perhaps I should of intervened more forcefully and ruin the sale by aleving his ignorance...

 

[wbholwell]

IMHO, both the salesperson and the customer were at fault. But don't beat yourself up about not warning the customer. I've heard stories of people who thwarted a sale, only to be kicked out of a store and asked not to return. I can't say that would've happened, but honestly it wasn't your responsibility. Who knows, maybe the guy started his tank with live sand and established live rock, and maybe his purchases will survive. ???

 

[cameron]

To me this one is easy. The customer is at fault. Even if the LFS had told him correctly (and that assumes the personel actually knew enough to tell him) the customer should know how to care for his livestock. If he doesn't know about how a fish is supposed to live, he probably doesn't know dietary issues and such either and will kill the fish one way or another.

LFS is a business and they are there to move fish. I appreciate an LFS going the extra mile, but if he didn't buy his tank and such from them they are under no obligation beyond the point of sale. Actually they are flat out under no obligation even if they sold him his tank. Online places don't ask either and nobody would accuse them of being neglegent for shipping a fish to someone who can't care for it.

I don't want to get into a rant, but this country used to be about personal responsibility. It really gets me that people think others are supposed to look out for us.

 

[frewl]

No I disagree its your fault. You should have ranted raved. Faked a really really really bad asain accent(I can say that since I too am asain therefore not offensive.) so they take you more seriously. What's smarter then an asain man? They are great at math and science sort of stuff.

But seriously its the customer's fault it is their responsibility to provide it the home it needs. In cold hard facts its the employees job to sell the fish. I mean its like buying a car. If you buy a diesel its your responsibility to know how to use the car and how it differs from a gasoline powered car. Maybe a bad example but I stand by it.

 

[wolfie]

It your fault for not telling where this LFS are our sponsor stores or not.


If it is one of our sponsor stores, then it the store fault for selling stuff to fools knowing they did it just for the money. Sponsor stores should have more dignity then this. If they did this to their customer then they are just using ARC for advertising. If that the case, we should have to right to revote their sponsorship when it is time for them to renew.

We (ARC) should have the choice to pick and chose our sponsor rather just letting sponsor join in just so they can adversative on ARC.

Now is still your fault if this store is not one of our sponsors. You should had told this customer to join our club and sent her to our sponsor store.

 

[frewl]

But that is water that needs not to be traveled. Customers need to educate themselves. Should we have a sign up list to patrol each LFS or ones we deem to be hazardous to fishes life?

I hate to say this but we are at the mercy of the LFS. Say he did forcefully interject. What's to say that the person would have even listen or that the employee or even the owner of the store asking him to leave and not to come back? I know its bad business to do things like that but then people can be A-holes.

The person didn't want to listen. I wasn't there but by Jin's account they didn't press for answers. If I just started and someone started trying to help me I would want to talk to them. If someone was using terms you weren't familiar with and seems knowledgeable about the subject wouldn't you ask more questions? Maybe I don't totally trust sales persons since I've been one and known way too many.

I've never knowing lied to a customer, but I have watched as store managers and even district managers lied or bent the truth so much it was pretty much in the shape of a pretzel. I have unknowingly passed misinformation that was passed onto me from managers and such but after I found out that it was wrong I would correct myself.

"Buyer Beware" how many times have we heard this? Remember most of the people aren't bad they just have bills and such that need to be paid. Big chain stores make their employees meet certain figures or risk disciplinary measures or even termination. Even a LFS might be feeling it more sometimes since heck maybe the mortgage payment is due really soon.

I'm not justifying what the LFS did. I'm stating what I believe to be true(remember I'm not saying its fact check out the disclaimer in the sig.) The bottom line customers need to read before they walk in a store.

 

[FutureInterest]

Caveat Emptor. Of course I didn't have a duty to warn for the customer's sake. I just feel like I screwed up because if I had sufficiently warned him... perhaps those clowns and that anenome might not end up in the toilet bowl tonight or in the very near future. I've never seen such a vibrant maroon clown, and if I didn't already have 2 mean lil maroons I would've taken him even though I was shopping for wrasse. Oh well, I hope they make it.

 

[jgoal55]

I agree w/ Cameron to a point....it is the customers responsibility to ask questions and do research. God knows when I set up my tank i called Lee seventeen times a day asking questions about what the heck was going on and what I needed to do....Even now, I am still asking people (ask brandon, lol).

Point is however, that I have more respect for a store that goes the extra mile to make sure that they don't sell you something that you shouldn't have. Like today at Blue planet, I wanted to buy a coral but I had told the lady that my brain was acting weird and although my parameters were fine, she said that she would rather have me hold off a bit....(which I was going to do anyway) but it was nice to see her not try and coerce me into buying it.

Absolutely, it is the customers responsibility. But if I owned a fish store, I'd train all my people to ask every question that needs to be asked for each animal sold (ie - if I walk in and say I want an eel, they should ask if I have a lid).

 

[cameron]

Jgoal55;33200 wrote: But if I owned a fish store, I'd train all my people to ask every question that needs to be asked for each animal sold (ie - if I walk in and say I want an eel, they should ask if I have a lid).

and when that store got busy with one of us in there waiting we would be posting about sucky service since the employees were all busy asking questions.

LFS has zero responsibility in this. They sell a product. You may not like the fact that a fish are a disposable product, but that is the way it is. They have no obligation to ask questions about a setup. I think it is a good gesture when they do, but I don't expect it. If a store sells a puppy to a family and that family kills the dog with poor conditions, do you think it is the stores fault? Hell no. Personal responsibility people. A company has no responsiblity beyond not selling me a faulty product in our lives and I want to keep it that way. It is bad enough I have the freakin government in my personal business telling me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my home and I don't want to add a fish store in there either. This countries founding principles and ultimately the idea of this country is doomed if it isn't already dead with this kind of thinking.

A place like Marine Fish was stocked with tons of fish on Thursday. By Monday I bet a huge number of those fish will be sold. Now they do this every week. Do you think most of those fish went to good homes? Do you think every fish they sell went into a new tank or to replace a well cared for fish in one of our tanks? Hmmm... I am going with no. Does Marine fish bear any responsibility for that... not in my book, but I am a Constitutionalist and believe in personal rights, freedoms and ultimately personal responsibility.

 

[wbholwell]

Cameron;33206 wrote:
LFS has zero responsibility in this. They sell a product.

I think everyone here will agree that the LFS has no legal responsibility in these situations. Of course, the consumer has an <u>obligation</u> to learn what it takes to keep an animal alive before buying said animal. However, I believe that the LFS has a moral</em> responsibility to refuse sale of an animal in cases where they know it won't survive. Is this good buisiness? No, maybe not. I just like to believe that we, as a race, will someday elevate ourselves above the almighty dollar.

 

[wbholwell]

Cameron;33206 wrote: I am a Constitutionalist and believe in personal rights, freedoms and ultimately personal responsibility.

Oh, BTW, I agree with you 100% on this account. I believe the government should only step in to <u>protect</u> personal rights and freedoms. A less intrusive goverment is a better government. Some people seem to forget that that is what makes capitalism work so well.

 

[cameron]

wbholwell;33221 wrote: Oh, BTW, I agree with you 100% on this account. I believe the government should only step in to <u>protect</u> personal rights and freedoms. A less intrusive goverment is a better government. Some people seem to forget that that is what makes capitalism work so well.

So in that idea, what right does the store have to refuse sale? Lets say they just don't agree with you on the way your tank is setup. I think Washowi doesn't run a protien skimmer. He tells that to XYZ LFS and they don't sell him a fish because he believes in a natural setting for his fish. I know that is a dramatic example, but moral or otherwise the LFS has no responsibility beyond not selling me a poor quality fish. They are not responsible for my actions on any level. This same arguement is used to allow the government into our homes. Because you can't control yourself smoking weed, we have to ban it. We don't like that gay thing, ohh... ban it. So on and so on. I think it is good that an LFS asks questions, but they do not have a responsibility to do so.

 

[mojo]

Cameron;33154 wrote: I don't want to get into a rant, but this country used to be about personal responsibility. It really gets me that people think others are supposed to look out for us.

Glad to see that others think this as well...

 

[wbholwell]

Cameron, I'm not sure what you mean. A store, or any person, has the right to refuse sale or services rendered as long as they are not discriminating based on race, religion, sex, etc. And the LFS is definitely not responsible for your actions, nor are they responsible for the health of an animal once it leaves their care. I still firmly believe, however, that every LFS has a moral obligation to refuse sale of an animal in cases where they know that the animal will die. It's not a legal responsibility, and I'm not saying it should be. I just feel that it's immoral.

 

[cameron]

wbholwell;33226 wrote: Cameron, I'm not sure what you mean. A store, or any person, has the right to refuse sale or services rendered as long as they are not discriminating based on race, religion, sex, etc. And the LFS is definitely not responsible for your actions, nor are they responsible for the health of an animal once it leaves their care. I still firmly believe, however, that every LFS has a moral obligation to refuse sale of an animal in cases where they know that the animal will die. It's not a legal responsibility, and I'm not saying it should be. I just feel that it's immoral.

I support the right to refuse sale by a company on any fair trade basis. I support a LFS requiring your tank params as well as an interview and a site visit before they sell a fish if they wish. That is between the LFS and the consumer. That is the right of the store not a responsibility.

The point is who is at fault for selling a fish to someone who might not be able to care for it. First, does the LFS have an obligation to put every fish they sell into a good home? Second, whose responsibility is it to know about the consumers environment. Lastly, even if they believe the fish is going into a poor home a businesses only obligation is to sell an item without misrepresentation. What moral obligation does a LFS store have when it comes to where a fish goes... none... zip... zero. If they did have an obligation, they wouldn't sell fish to probably 80% of the people that buy them. That is fine in principal, but in reality it would put them out of business. I would hazard a guess their best customers are regular fish killers.

 

[george]

I am of the thought that responsibility is shared, but, while final responsibility rests with the buyer, a larger portion of the process rests with the LFS.

Without knowing the circumstances of this sale, do we know if the sales person even knew how long his tank was set up? If so, fault definitely rests at the LFS. If not, at what point does the LFS become akin to a puppy farm store that simply responds "We're just providing what people want. It's not our fault if people aren't prepared." without any concern to the advisability of impulse purchases and possibly questionable livestock?

When the average Joe/Jane on the street thinks that a fish tank can be had by just dumping water and a fish in any container that can hold it and this is backed up by media they see, where does the obligation of the LFS to disseminate a correct process begin and end? The LFS is the only place we can guarantee the customer comes in contact with (presumably) knowledgeable people. For something like clowns and an anemone, there should be questions asked. No need to interrogate the customer on every purchase, but one of that complexity should warrant a few inquiries.

As for the reaction that people have regarding service, I agree that is an unfortunate by product of an involved staff. However, I frankly think that anyone that doesn't have the patience to understand that each sale takes time has no business in this hobby.

Future, you're not part of the responsibility, IMO. However that shouldn't discourage you from offering advice. If the LFS kicks you out, you're probably better off not going near them again anyway since a good store would realize that you were right.

 

[kevin]

I definately agree with cameron, it is the customer's fault. They should have done some research to learn about the ecosystem that they are caring for and the animals that they put in it.

You wouldn't put a 6 week old puppy outside 24/7, so why should you treat your fish tank that way

 

[cameron]

George;33236 wrote: Without knowing the circumstances of this sale, do we know if the sales person even knew how long his tank was set up? If so, fault definitely rests at the LFS. If not, at what point does the LFS become akin to a puppy farm store that simply responds "We're just providing what people want. It's not our fault if people aren't prepared." without any concern to the advisability of impulse purchases and possibly questionable livestock?

This is impossing your moral beliefs on a business. A business has an obligation to reasonable care while in their tanks, but not beyond. At point of sale, that obligation... responsibility belongs to the person buying the fish. Just because it is the most convinient place to police fish sales doesn't make it right.

 

[george]

Cameron;33246 wrote: This is impossing your moral beliefs on a business. A business has an obligation to reasonable care while in their tanks, but not beyond. At point of sale, that obligation... responsibility belongs to the person buying the fish. Just because it is the most convinient place to police fish sales doesn't make it right.

Responsible care of any living organism is a matter of conscience and, like it or not, plays into personal morality. If the LFS cares at all about the hobby and the livestock they carry, they are showing some level of conscience and morality as well. I would argue it is impossible to be in the pet business without exercising (or ignoring) conscience and morality.

Cameron wrote: I support the right to refuse sale by a company on any fair trade basis. I support a LFS requiring your tank params as well as an interview and a site visit before they sell a fish if they wish. That is between the LFS and the consumer. That is the right of the store not a responsibility.

You stated your support for inquiring customer fitness. I would say that if a store chooses to sell live creatures for the purposes of keeping them alive, they have at least some responsibility to make sure the customer understands the requirements of the organisms they sell.

We've had discussions on this board about the subject of Nurse sharks for sale. How is this any different? Most agreed that the sale of Nurse sharks is irresponsible because virtually nobody has the resources to really care for one over the long haul.

Selling a reasonably difficult set like a pair of clowns and an anemone to a customer blindly without asking a few questions is irresponsible as well. It's a lesser degree of irresponsibility, but some of the responsibility still sits with the LFS.

Don't misunderstand me, the ultimate responsibility lies with the customer alone. I contend, however, that the LFS is a party to the process.

 

[fishybusiness]

Thats one big issue in a store that I used to see a lot. In the past I have seen people drop $2500 on a new setup and ask all of the questions but in the end they refuse to buy the $30 book. Why do they do it? Who knows. Most people want to see immediate results and if something happens then they come back to the LFS and ask "what happened?". Advice is free but it comes at a price to the LFS.
Normally I always ask the simple question "whats your setup?". People will generally be very happy to tell you everything about thier setup. Sometimes I get a reply that makes me question the sale and then I go into conversation. I have had more people be mad with me about not selling them the fish than people being happy about it. Sometimes that person will come back and say thank you and tell me that they have done more reading about the subject. It makes me feel really good but that unfortunatly is the rarer case. Most people in this hobby however are repeat customers and several people give up the hobby when trying to go through the cycling phase. All in all I would say mostly it relies on the consumer and not the LFS but the employee that goes that extra little step gains a loyal following. How many of us when we first started out had our favorite LFS employees because they would tell us how it was?