Simply Grand Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) It would be interesting if the owner was here to put their side of the story. No matter what their side is the facts & outcome still remain the same. They were told to keep the dogs apart or they would fight. They didn't. The dogs did fight. The dogs got injured. They charged the client the vet bill. Not impressive no matter what their side or excuses are. Exactly. ETA - what of this were dogs belonging to two different owners? Owner of one dog specified that their dog must not be allowed access to other dogs. Kennel ACCEPTED THE DOG AS A CLIENT on those terms. Dog whose owners specified it must not have access to other dogs somehow did and injured "your" (the generic your) dog. I don't see how this is any different. If the kennel owner didn't want to or couldn't ensure the dogs were kept separate, say so up front, absolutely fine, I have no issue with that. But if you say you will do it you have to do it, or if something goes wrong, take responsibility for that. Edited March 27, 2015 by Simply Grand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now