Jump to content

Interesting Decision In Tribunal Recently


redangel
 Share

Recommended Posts

In light of the petshop/ puppy farmer crackdowns currently taking place I see many different decisions going around which may have implications onregistered dog breeders. An example is this one...where a pup diagnosed with an ailment was not refunded or replaced but instead the seller/breeder had to pay all expenses for the animals treatment.

Story here My link

I am wondering in situations where people have purchased a puppy which later proves to have an ailment can refuse the breeders option of a remedy and seek renumeration of all costs from the breeder. Is it contractual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See now, if the pet shop concerned passed on those expenses to the "breeder" that supplied the pup... maybe that would have an even greater effect. The shop should have the details of where the faulty pup was sourced from, yes?

T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would it be a greater effect? Only for the costs... what interests me is who makes the decision of remedy...?

What I am trying to establish is that in the case of a registered breeder in the same/similar situation does this mean that there is a solid ground for the new owners to refuse remedy put forward by the breeder concerned...and like this case have a court decide? Then I ask- How far would costs be paid/awarded?...for the initial treatment or lifelong?

Is it an induvidual call..a contractual law (on selling paperwork) or a personal emotional one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under our laws pets/animals are actually considered goods and chattels. So they entered a contract with a pet store buying an item (let's forget it was a living thing) that was supposed to be fit for purpose. Under what would be considered normal care (basic food, access to water and adequate shelter) this item would be expected to operate fit for purpose for 'x' period of time. In this instance the 'goods' started to fail within a very short period of time. Alterations to house and lifestyle had been made in good faith to accommodate and care for these 'goods'. It became 'fixed' in place. Money had already been expended to care for these 'goods' above and beyond the basic care needs being met.

Regardless of the comments in the story I'm not sure about a tribunal can use the emotional card of a dog being a family member. I doubt goods could ever legally be considered the same as living beings (humans who have legally registered birth names) so the tribunal would have to be basing their decision on some legal grounds for it to stick. Basically these people made a purchase in good faith, met all warranty obligations and were sold faulty goods which were now considered fixed in place and couldn't be returned for refund so they got compensation instead. There are lots of other non-living goods out there that can't be returned for a refund either - you can't pull down house extensions for instance but the owners can be reimbursed for extra costs expended to rectify faults and live with a less than perfect job that might give them problems in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Little Gifts..I was under the impression animals were classified as goods which is why I was wondering if this sent a new view. So if a breeder had unknowingly sold a pup with a condition at the time was not identifiable...say at 8 weeks...then at 12 weeks the condition came to attention of both seller and buyer...then can the buyer dictate as in the case above the remedy and not the breeder??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A magistrate should take on board both sides of the situation and determine a fair outcome. The buyer could always make a case if they can prove they have kept up their end of the contract caring for the dog and not breaching any written agreement but I suspect a good breeder is in a position to work differently with an owner if a health issue arises than a pet shop would be. A good breeder is more likely to be able to show that the pup had vet care and checks prior to being sold 'in good faith' as sound, so any damages should be minimal if an Act of God occurs. They probably also got the new owner to sign some kind of contract regarding what to do in the case of future problems with the dog - a kind of warranty arrangement where the breeder has a say in assessing significant health issues that arise. A pet shop can't do that as they don't care about that side of things and hedge their bets. If you buy a dodgy pet and don't come back and complain it's no skin off their nose. Whereas a good breeder would want to know if anything genetic showed up in one of their dogs.

Now if we are talking about a crappy breeder then I guess they will care as little as a pet shop.

Can you see the difference? Not knowing you were selling a faulty item (especially when you have strategies in place to ensure you are not) is very different from not having any checks and balances in place to ensure you are selling a sound item in the first place. Pet shops may as well stick 'AS IS' signs on all their dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under our laws pets/animals are actually considered goods and chattels. So they entered a contract with a pet store buying an item (let's forget it was a living thing) that was supposed to be fit for purpose. Under what would be considered normal care (basic food, access to water and adequate shelter) this item would be expected to operate fit for purpose for 'x' period of time. In this instance the 'goods' started to fail within a very short period of time. Alterations to house and lifestyle had been made in good faith to accommodate and care for these 'goods'. It became 'fixed' in place. Money had already been expended to care for these 'goods' above and beyond the basic care needs being met.

Regardless of the comments in the story I'm not sure about a tribunal can use the emotional card of a dog being a family member. I doubt goods could ever legally be considered the same as living beings (humans who have legally registered birth names) so the tribunal would have to be basing their decision on some legal grounds for it to stick. Basically these people made a purchase in good faith, met all warranty obligations and were sold faulty goods which were now considered fixed in place and couldn't be returned for refund so they got compensation instead. There are lots of other non-living goods out there that can't be returned for a refund either - you can't pull down house extensions for instance but the owners can be reimbursed for extra costs expended to rectify faults and live with a less than perfect job that might give them problems in the future.

I think it would be a case of 'Caveat emptor' vs 'Caveat venditor: My link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can offer a repair, refund or replacement but there is no requirement on the buyer to accept it. This is becoming more common and at the end of the day its about what the implied warranty was and the fine print.

Registered breeders are even more at risk of this than pet shops are because people come to them in the belief they will get a superior product. Since we researched consumer law regarding the sale of live animals we now advise our members to be aware of certain things they may say or imply when selling their pups and changing the wording in their contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...