Health Problem with Dog just purchased from Breeder
- Thread starter sbfish
- Start date
The buyer had the dog for two weeks. Perhaps the buyer does not WANT to return the dog, BUT the buyer wanted to make the dog well. It is for this VERY reason that the law is written. Many breeders would take advantage of the fact that a buyer does not want to return the dog, nor do they HAVE to under the law.
I think the main point here is that the breeder sent the dog home without a contract. This creates all sorts of problems, because who's to say that the contract that is brought to court reads the same way it would have had it been sent home before all this happened?
Yes, the breeder should have made sure the puppy was in perfect health. If an ear infection was severe enough that it made the dog scratch it's ear bloody, this probably would have been caught during the supposed ear cleaning that sparked the whole thing. However...sh*t happens and the stress of a new home could have taken an irritated ear and turned it into a double-infection.
I would just proceed carefully which ever way you go.
Yes, the breeder should have made sure the puppy was in perfect health. If an ear infection was severe enough that it made the dog scratch it's ear bloody, this probably would have been caught during the supposed ear cleaning that sparked the whole thing. However...sh*t happens and the stress of a new home could have taken an irritated ear and turned it into a double-infection.
I would just proceed carefully which ever way you go.
But the breeder said There's No Problem and the owner believed that.
Laws like that dog law don't get written for nothing. God knows how many people got stuck for bills before enough complaints led to that law.
Tell you what, so we don't put everybody in a coma here. I am willing to wager with you on the outcome of this small claims case. Give your confirmable name and address to the moderator of your choice for safe keeping in case I have to pay you, and let me know how much you want to wager.
Laws like that dog law don't get written for nothing. God knows how many people got stuck for bills before enough complaints led to that law.
Tell you what, so we don't put everybody in a coma here. I am willing to wager with you on the outcome of this small claims case. Give your confirmable name and address to the moderator of your choice for safe keeping in case I have to pay you, and let me know how much you want to wager.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 431
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
The breeder said it because they believed it to be true. Common sense should tell you that this was unintentional. Again, a "nationally known" breeder...WHY would they PURPOSELY place a dog with an active problem...they WOULDN'T....especially not something as trivial and treatable as an ear infection.
You need only to go read Boemy's post about whether or not an owner has the choice of returning the dog they grew to love or not, whilst still securing recompense from the seller. While you personally *think* the owner should have returned the dog, the owner was not legally obligated to do so.
Wager or no wager?
Wager or no wager?
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 431
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
It's not heartless, it's a cold hard fact. Buying this dog WAS a transaction. Money was exchanged, i.e. a purchase was made, i.e. a TRANSACTION was preformed.
I am sorry but you cannot form a "real" bond with a dog in less than 24 hours and before you say it can.... what would have happened if this dog and the other older one did not get along? Would it have been returned then? Or would the owner have made both dogs exist in misery because they loved it too much from a less than 24 hour bond?
When you buy a dog and there is a problem you have a duty to inform the breeder, if at that point (less than 24 hours later) if you don't want responsibility for a problem you return the dog to the breeder and ask them to take care of it.
If this dog had turned out to hate the new home and chew a hole in the wall, would you people expect the breeder to pay for the damages? What if the dog suffered a stroke? would the breeder be responsible for that too? should the breeder have known there was a blood clot waiting to break loose and cause a problem in the dog? If the dog had had a stroke the next day would the buyer have kept the dog or returned it for the breeder to take care of the problem?
An ear infection is not life threatening. The vet misdiagnosed the original problem. If the vet misdiagnosed the issue then how on earth can a breeder be expected to diagnose it correctly. They answered the owner's concerns as best as they could over the phone. If the owner did not like that answer they could take the dog to see the breeder or get a second opinion. Which they did and that opinion wound up being wrong, costing them money that did not need to be wasted. I don't see any one expecting the vet to re-emburse the owner for the misdiagnosis and for the emergency vet costs all which could have been avoided on the first visit if the problem had been treated correctly.
And as "scary" as this diagnosis sounds, it can and is treated with a 17.00 tube of ear antibiotic. It is not an uncommon or unusual problem and the rod shaped negative gram bacteria is found in water and dirt ANY WHERE.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 431
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
That maybe true. And if you keep using these puppylemon law crutches to bully your way through the breeding community you are going to find yourself without breeders to purchase dogs from. And that will be your own fault.
So many people in CA are already whining and moaning about how expensive dogs are there and how breeders just never have anything available. If you think its bad now just wait. And you can "legal" that all the way to the bank....