Nope, just did arbitration for these types of cases for a number of years. Often, they are referred to an arbitrator after initial review, if the two parties agree. It expedites the case because courts are so bogged down. I think I mentioned that earlier in this thread. State laws supercede these contracts. They are written to protect buyers of dogs (they are still considered consumers even if it is a living thing they purchased). The reason some states have included that they do not have to return a dog deals with the emotional issue of loving a sick dog, I am sure. But when a person files a claim in small claims, the issue that is in the claim is dealt with. The claimant is asked what they expect to see happen and that is what the case deals with. If you go to your own county small claims site you will see that it is a monetary court, that is all I am saying. You may not like it but that's how it is.
I say why not wait and see what happens with sbfish's current plan and stop trying to scare him away from doing what he feels is right. Trust me, if his application indicates he doesn't have a case that belongs in court of claims, it will stop there and get his 25 dollars back.
P.S. He paid for the dog and has the receipts to show this. He owns the dog. Besides, do we really think a reputable breeder is going to deny selling a dog?
