Health Problem with Dog just purchased from Breeder

[sbfish]

I apologize for the length of this post but I would really appreciate any feedback on how to handle the following problem. 2 weeks ago I purchased a 3 year old female vizsla from a nationally reputable breeder that I have bought a dog from before. The following day Haley was shaking and scratching her ears and making a wheezing sound. I immediately called the breeder and was reassured the dog was healthy that the ear shaking was due to having her ears cleaned before I picked her up and the sound was "snurgling." Long story short I took her to my vet and cytology report was positive for fungal ear infection. A couple days later I had to take her in the middle of the night to emergency CARE because she was scratching her ear raw. I returned to my vet the following day where she was sedated to have her ears washed and checked for foreign bodies. There were no foreign bodies but I found out today she tested positive for Pseudomonas. Vet bills are up to $700 as of today. Fortunately Haley is no longer in pain.

The breeder is unwilling to offer any financial compensation for the bills and would rather barter, providing me with another dog in the future or help me breed Haley (she has 8 pts). I am not wanting to barter. To make matters worse she rudely told me I should have called her and brought the dog to her vet (2 hours away) as vets in my town are more expensive, probably taking advantage of me, and her vet could have resolved the problem more effectively!?

I love this dog and she gets along really well with my 13 yr old vizsla. I don't want to return her but I am aware of the potential complications and ongoing costs with this diagnosis.

My questions are: 1) what type of compensation would be expected from a responsible and ethical breeder under these circumstances if I choose to keep her? 2) If the breeder is unwilling to do this what are some options I can pursue other than returning Haley?

Thank you for your time, Julie

[Saje]

She doesn't sound like a very good breeder. :( What does your contact say? A good breeder would have a health guarantee.

[RedyreRottweilers]

This issue should have been resolved as to what was going to happen before you sought vet care and paid money for it. Apparently you tried that, and unfortunately it didn't work.

At this point any action you take is going to end up costing you more than the vet bills probably. If the breeder were going to stand behind the dog, you would not be here making this post.

If the bitch is better, I would say you have 2 choices, really. Zip your lip and move on, or return the bitch and get your money back.

Are you planning to finish her?

[RedyreRottweilers]

She doesn't sound like a very good breeder.

That is possible, but with all respect due to the OP, there are 2 sides to every story, and we have only heard one side.

[ToscasMom]

I would take her to small claims court. See how she likes that.

You do not need a lawyer in court of claims. You present the information, she rebuts and the judge decides.

[sbfish]

She doesn't sound like a very good breeder. :( What does your contact say? A good breeder would have a health guarantee.

She was in a hurry to get to an appointment and is going to mail me contract, so unfortunately I don't recall what the contract states.

[sbfish]

Are you planning to finish her?

I have never shown a dog before, what is the advantage of finishing her?

[RedyreRottweilers]

Just a couple of comments. You have no contract. Better step VERY LIGHTLY until you do.

The advantage of finishing her is that she will carry the title of CH on the front of her name forever. Later when others do pedigree research, they will understand immediately that she was of a certain quality. It shows other breeders looking at current pedigrees who might be considering breedings of her relatives (sire, grand sires, uncles, aunts, etc) that the combination of her sire and dam produced at least one dog who was able to complete a CH title. The reason I would do it is I think it's a fun thing to do with my dog. :D

Hope you get the contract straightened out, but if I were you, unless and until you do, I would keep very quiet.

[RedyreRottweilers]

Oh, and FWIW, no one would ever, under ANY circumstances, leave my home with any dog or puppy without a signed contract that has been reviewed carefully with the new owners. I also do not release any dogs or puppies without a current health certificate.

[sbfish]

The breeder initially didn't offer her for sale because she wanted to finish her and asked if I would be willing to bring her to a dog show(s) which will be occurring in my town, as well as leaving her name as owner of the dog until she finished. Because I trusted and respected her I had no objection. She also stated she'd be willing to help me if I wanted to breed her. I have no experience with breeding and though appealing I need to research whether this would be an option to pursue.

[ToscasMom]

Contract isn't necessary in court of claims. Good faith is just as important in court of claims. This type of court is designed for the consumer who feels he has been wronged financially by a business and doesn't want to spend more on a lawyer than the case is worth. There are limits to the amount of recovery, but that limit is surely well above your costs. Bring the date of purchase proof and all the vet bills and describe the timing and what happened. Court of claims is not expensive. I think the average price is something like 20 bucks. You can only present for actual financial losses, which is what you want to do anyways.

[sbfish]

Thank you for the suggestion, I think this is a good option.

[bubbatd]

Good luck !!!

[FrenchKissed]

$700.00 to treat an ear infection is a little outrageous. You should have returned the dog and allowed the breeder to treat the problem. Yes it was 2 hours away, but 2 hours is a far cry from $700.
You took the dog to your vet and then to the emergency clinic because later on she was scratching the ears raw.
Your vet misdiagnosed the problem and treated the issue incorrectly. It seems to me your issue should be with your own vet, who diagnosed it as a fungal infection when it was actually a bacterial issue.
Things like this are not a health problem they are a disease and they are temporary.
When you choose to own a dog they are going to have things go wrong with them. They are a living breathing animal and nothing is fool proof in biology.
If you wanted the breeder to be responsible for the vet bill you should have taken the dog back and allowed the breeder to treat the issue. You chose not to do this. No, it is not the breeder's responsibility to pay for your choice of treatment.

[ToscasMom]

Well there's two sides to a coin, yes, I agree. Sometimes vet medicine is a process of elimination. There isn't one of us who hasn't been thru that. The truth of the matter is, the breeder told the owner that the problem was just because the ears were cleaned. That turned out not to be so. If the puppy hadn't had a problem to begin with, the owner would not have had to go to the vet for it. That's why court of claims is such a good thing. A judge or appointed arbitrator can sort these things out more objectively and make a final legally binding determination.

And since there is no contract, the owner had no way of knowing what the agreed upon process should be in treating a puppy that was ill.

[FrenchKissed]

Contract isn't necessary in court of claims. Good faith is just as important in court of claims. This type of court is designed for the consumer who feels he has been wronged financially by a business and doesn't want to spend more on a lawyer than the case is worth. There are limits to the amount of recovery, but that limit is surely well above your costs. Bring the date of purchase proof and all the vet bills and describe the timing and what happened. Court of claims is not expensive. I think the average price is something like 20 bucks. You can only present for actual financial losses, which is what you want to do anyways.



Small claims court costs vary by location. Some states it is a couple hundred dollars to file, most are around $50. Second the claim would have to be made in the county of purchase. That means going back to that county to file the paper work and going back again for the court date.
Any judge with an ounce of common sense is going to question why some one was willing to make *two* two hour trips to sue some one but would not make that trip to return a dog to the breeder so that they (the breeder) could take responsibility for the problem to begin with.
Sometimes life is full of hard lessons and we simply need to learn from them instead of trying to post the blame on others.

[sbfish]

$700.00 to treat an ear infection is a little outrageous. You should have returned the dog and allowed the breeder to treat the problem.
Your vet misdiagnosed the problem and treated the issue incorrectly. It seems to me your issue should be with your own vet, who diagnosed it as a fungal infection when it was actually a bacterial issue.
Things like this are not a health problem they are a disease and they are temporary.
When you choose to own a dog they are going to have things go wrong with them. They are a living breathing animal and nothing is fool proof in biology.
.

She has both a fungal infection and a bacterial one which can be highly resistant to antibiotics and extremely difficult to treat. At the time I called concerned about her ear she was adamant there was no problem. I am not new to owning a dog and understand the financial responsibility involved. I went to the vet for a routine check-up, to introduce them, and to check her ear. This was Saturday and I was willing to pay this and didn't think it necessary to take her back to the breeder. Monday morning at 1 am is when I needed to take her to emergency. When I did speak with the breeder after the sedation she said she should have told me to bring her back.

For your assessment here are the costs:

9/7 visit, cytology, fungal med--$142
9/10 emergency fee, pain med--$131
9/11 sedation, ear wash, test, culture & sensitivity, meds--$426

[bubbatd]

I feel so sorry for you !!! And yes ...the breeder should help you with the expenses or refund you your money .

[simplymisty]

I agree, the breeder should pay. Just my 02

[RedyreRottweilers]

If I were the breeder, I would not want any relationship with someone who was going to hold me hostage over some (un-necessary IMO) vet treatment and costs, and who would go post all this stuff on some public bulletin board dragging my name through the mud.

In fact if this happened to ME, I would likely DEMAND the return of the dog and refund the purchase price as soon as the dog and the papers were returned to me.

However, I would never have let anyone leave with a dog without first signing a contract. You go to court with no contract, you pay your money and you take your chances.

[ToscasMom]

Small claims court costs vary by location. Some states it is a couple hundred dollars to file, most are around $50.
Name me one state that has this limit and I will wash your car.

The maximum for small claims in the USA generally ranges from $1000 to $2500

A judge "with any sense" or the abitrator they appoint will ask PLENTY of questions. The issue here is, the person bought a dog, the dog was sick, the breeder said it was nothing, the owner vetted the dog, and there is no contract that instructs the owner what to do.

[FrenchKissed]

Again,
The breeder more than likely honestly thought there was no problem. After all, even your vet misdiagnosed the real problem. But you as the buyer thought there was. At that point it is your responsibility to either take the dog to the vet or return it to the breeder to deal with the issue. You went to the vet, you were told there was a problem, you could have taken her back at that time as well and allowed the breeder to deal with the problem. After the vet you took her to the emergency room, again, you had another choice, you could have returned her to the breeder and let the breeder be finacially responsible.
At any point in all this you could have made the choice to make this the breeder's responsiblity, but you chose not to. You chose to make it yours. It is not fair for the breeder to be responsible for your choice of treatment.

You yourself said that this breeder is well known. What benefit could it possibly bring this person to purposely sell you a sick dog? The answer is none. They did not know it had an ear infection as it was probably not showing itself until the next day (was she shaking her head, itching and wheezing when you picked her up? If so why did you take her home?)....if you did not see that there was a problem, then how is the breeder supposed to see that there was a problem? The truth is she, the breeder, could no more tell that there was an ear issue boiling then you could.
The moment there was an issue and you called her, you had a choice. Take her back or take on the finacial cost of treating the issue.

[FrenchKissed]

Name me one state that has this limit and I will wash your car.

The maximum for small claims in the USA generally ranges from $1000 to $2500

A judge "with any sense" or the abitrator they appoint will ask PLENTY of questions. The issue here is, the person bought a dog, the dog was sick, the breeder said it was nothing, the owner vetted the dog, and there is no contract that instructs the owner what to do.



You did not read what I wrote correctly. I said the cost of *filing* the claim was a few hundred dollars in some states but around 50 in most.
I said nothing about what a person could be awarded.

[ToscasMom]

Sbfish, if you need help locating your court of claims and how to file your claim, PM me.

[FrenchKissed]

If I were the breeder, I would not want any relationship with someone who was going to hold me hostage over some (un-necessary IMO) vet treatment and costs, and who would go post all this stuff on some public bulletin board dragging my name through the mud.

In fact if this happened to ME, I would likely DEMAND the return of the dog and refund the purchase price as soon as the dog and the papers were returned to me.

However, I would never have let anyone leave with a dog without first signing a contract. You go to court with no contract, you pay your money and you take your chances.



A well said voice of reason. Yes, dragging this out on a public forum is tacky indeed.

[FrenchKissed]

Sbfish, if you need help locating your court of claims and how to file your claim, PM me.



Yes, do file, but don't be suprised when you get your hand bitten off by the judge.

[ToscasMom]

all righty then. Not the case, do not listen to this horsecrap. Judges are dealing with regular people in court of claims. It's not like Teeeeeeeee Veeeeeeee, trust me.

Are you in Orange County Ca? looks like the fee for filing claims is $25, which is about average. Small claims if for the little guy and the judge will not be Judy.

They will set a preliminary date and most likely forward your case to an arbitrator. Get the forms here and look them over.

http://www.occourts.org/civil/smclaims.asp

[Boemy]

California's law falls hardest on sellers of unhealthy dogs, but hobby breeders do not fall under its provisions except for the extremely active ones. It applies to anyone who sold, transferred, or gare away two or more litters during the preceding calendar year.

Buyers have 15 days to document contagious or infectious disease, one year to document congenital or hereditary defects. The seller has 120 days to produce advertised registration papers. If the seller fails to do so, the buyer may return the dog for a full refund or keep the dog and receive a refund of 75 percent of the purchase price.

If the dog is proven to be ill or to have hereditary defects, the buyer is entitled to a replacement plus reimbursement for veterinary expenses related to certifying the dog's illness, up to the price of the dog including sales tax.

The buyer may also choose a refund plus reimbursement for veterinary expenses related to certifying the dog's illness, up to the price of the dog.

If the buyer elects to have the dog treated, the seller is required to cover up to 1 1/2 times the purchase price of the dog in veterinary expenses.

It is important to note that the cost of testing to certify a dog unhealthy could double what a seller is obligated to refund to the purchaser. This makes it very expensive to sell ill and defective dogs in California.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/pets/lemon_ca.html


So I guess the question is did the breeder sell two or more litters in the previous year?

[ToscasMom]

Well done Boemy

To court of claims though, a puppy is no different than a washing machine, unfortunately. It's property, a purchase, just as if you purchased a washing machine that stopped working two weeks later and the vendor tells you the problem will go away but it doesn't. The question is, was the washing machine broken and if so, did it have to be fixed?

[ToscasMom]

However, I would never have let anyone leave with a dog without first signing a contract.
And RR that is one obvious difference between you and this breeder.

[FrenchKissed]

And people wonder why CA dogs cost so much, why breeders are leaving CA, and why before long, buying a dog in CA will only be affordable by the wealthy or those willing to buy from out of state sight unseen.
Just because there is a lemon law it doesn't mean that using it to blackmail a breeder is ethical. Remember DOG PEOPLE have a VERY loooooooong memory and bad news travels faster than light on the show circuits. You might win the battle but you *will* loose the war.
And people complain about dog breeders having no ethics....
I have been in the position of buyer several times in my nearly two decades in dogs. Some buys have been good, some have not. If I had a problem I went back to the person that I bought the dog from. 99% of the time they made it right. If I chose NOT to go back to them, then that was MY choice...I never held it over their heads and used it to abuse them.

I am sorry folks, but ETHICS and good buisness run both ways.

[FrenchKissed]

And RR that is one obvious difference between you and this breeder.



But a contract would not save a breeder from being abused by a state lemon law if a person chose to do so. State lemon law usually supercedes any written contracts unless that contract covers (as in finacial) more than the law.

[ToscasMom]

Yes, dragging this out on a public forum is tacky indeed.

What's also tacky is telling someone that court of claims performs in a way it doesn't perform, such as "getting your head bitten off by the judge" when it simply couldn't be farther from the truth.

When the application is received, they review it and determine if the claim has any validity as a customer making a purchase from a vendor. After that, they set the date and most likely a trained arbitrator handles it. If not, a city judge handles it and if the case has gotten there, it is handled with dignity unlike the entertainment show that is deliberately set to thrill. On TV court, both parties agree to join in on the performance as part of their claim. It's kind of like Springer.

In fact, it's kind of boring in real life. You file your claim, tell them what you would like to see happen. You submit your invoices, tell your story and and judge asks for clarifications. Having no contract will work against the breeder a whole lot more than against the owner. Most purchases of items don't come with contracts anyways, but a contract might have protected the owner if it spelled out "what to do".

Most times, a claim doesn't even reach court, as vendors make offers to settle it.

[Buddy'sParents]

Most reputable breeders wouldn't do things to cause their names being "slung thru mud". This person came here for advice- advice is what we give.

$700.00 to treat an ear infection is a little outrageous.

Depends on the area. Living in the bay area of Ca, myself, I'd say $700 isn't outrageous for the three treatments the dog received.

To the OP- wait until you have that contract in your hand and then go about whatever business you deem reasonable.

While we don't know both sides of the story, what I hear is pretty shady in regards to the breeder.

[ToscasMom]

But a contract would not save a breeder from being abused by a state lemon law if a person chose to do so. State lemon law usually supercedes any written contracts unless that contract covers (as in finacial) more than the law.
I saw this a few times when automobile buy back complaints were submitted. In the "old days" before lemon law arbitrators, these were handled by BBB Judges, of which I was one. On several occasions, some consumers just couldn't stand up to the test. I saw some people try for buybacks who instead were inches away from having their cars reposessed. It's a line arbitrators are used to crossing. In most states they are very well trained. You are right that there is abuse of the system, but more often than not, it gets nailed. This particular case if really more of purchase timeline, occurence, problem identification and outcomes, so it's pretty hard to fudge anything.

[FrenchKissed]

What's also tacky is telling someone that court of claims performs in a way it doesn't perform, such as "getting your head bitten off by the judge" when it simply couldn't be farther from the truth.




Surely you realized what I said was "tongue and cheek". No in small claims a judge does not literally bite off your head, they rarely even respond to the plantiff or defendent. And while arbitration is offered it does not always end the issue which must then go before a judge. Which, depending on your county, often partakes in a room at a table, not in a "court room" with an audience.
However any judge, with any common sense, is going to take into consideration the choices of the buyer. Every choice one makes, every communication made, is going to be remembered and cataloged by that judge, and it will fall against that person's claims.
Using the excuse that the breeder was 2 hours away is NOT going to cut it with a smart judge. Case in point the county to make the claim in will be 2 hours away as well.
And THANK GOD it would not be some sham court TV program where the judges are so stupid that they believe in the mythical "locking" jaws of pit bulls and are so ignorant of basic canine husbandry that they could not find their way around to the butt end of a dog.

[ToscasMom]

I really do not see the relevence of the two hours, to be honest. The dog had an emergency or its owner perceived of it as an emergency, which is good enough. I think more relevant is the fact that the owner called the breeder who made a diagnosis over the phone that turned out to be wrong. The owner wouldn't have known it was wrong without a vet of his choice, which is definitely not out of line.

[bubbatd]

Question : Why did this breeder want to get rid of her 3 years old dog in the first place ??? Sorry if I missed this .

[FrenchKissed]

I really do not see the relevence of the two hours, to be honest. The dog had an emergency or its owner perceived of it as an emergency, which is good enough. I think more relevant is the fact that the owner called the breeder who made a diagnosis over the phone that turned out to be wrong. The owner wouldn't have known it was wrong without a vet of his choice, which is definitely not out of line.


The buyer is not willing to drive the dog back 2 hours but is willing to drive 2 hours to that person's county (and will probably have to do so multiple times) to sue them over a vet bill they would have never incurred had they taken the dog back.

As for the breeder making a misdiagnosis, they were probably going on past experience they could not look at the dog over the phone. What about the VET who had the dog in front of them and misdiagnosed the dog making it need an unnecessary emergency room visit?
Obviously the problem was not that obvious.
Dogs, especially those with ears that hang, are more prone to ear infections. Sporting dogs can be the worse because of their love of the water.

If the dog was *defective* it should have been returned. Hauling it around to different vets and giving them money and then complaining about it is ridiculous. I am sorry but using the excuse that the dog "gets along" with the other dog in the house hold as a reason not to return it to the breeder is flimsy at best. If you want the breeder to pay for the problem them the breeder should get to use the vet of their choice. Just like if the buyer wants to pay for the problem then they get the use the vet of their choice.

[FrenchKissed]

Depends on the area. Living in the bay area of Ca, myself, I'd say $700 isn't outrageous for the three treatments the dog received.

Well it sounds like the breeder lives in CA they thought that the costs were outrageous as well. But then CA is the home of the $3000 spay....so what else could one possibly expect.

[simplymisty]

If I were the breeder, I would not want any relationship with someone who was going to hold me hostage over some (un-necessary IMO) vet treatment and costs, and who would go post all this stuff on some public bulletin board dragging my name through the mud.

She didn't post who the breeder was did she? I agree that I wouldn't want my name dragged through the mud, but I think that she made a point to just ask opinions and not name names? Maybe I missed something though??

[ToscasMom]

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.

[Zoom]

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.

[FrenchKissed]

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.


She had the dog for one day before she had a concern. The dog should have been returned at that moment.

[ToscasMom]

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.

[bubbatd]

Zoom , this was a 3 year old dog .....my question is , had this gal used up her " usefulness " as far as the breeder was concerned ?? I could never sell any of my dogs !!

[FrenchKissed]

But the breeder said There's No Problem and the owner believed that.


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.

[ToscasMom]

The breeder said it because they believed it to be true. Common sense should tell you that this was unintentional.
Of course it was unintentional. It's also irrelevant that it was unintentional because the dog indeed had a medical problem that cost the owner money. Unintentional doesn't make that go away.

[ToscasMom]

In addition to being unintentional, it was also stupid. Diagnosing a dog over the phone. That will go over well.

[Buddy'sParents]

She had the dog for one day before she had a concern. The dog should have been returned at that moment.

That's heartless. To some buying a dog isn't just a transaction- it's a life choice.

[FrenchKissed]

Of course it was unintentional. It's also irrelevant that it was unintentional because the dog indeed had a medical problem that cost the owner money. Unintentional doesn't make that go away.


It did not have to cost the owner money. The owner could have returned the dog and allowed the breeder to treat it. They chose not to do that. That was their choice, therefore their expense.

[FrenchKissed]

In addition to being unintentional, it was also stupid. Diagnosing a dog over the phone. That will go over well.


The breeder was giving an opinion.
How about the vet that misdiagnosed the dog in person and made this even cost X amount more than it should have. Why aren't you roasting them?

[ToscasMom]

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?

[L T-R]

Frankly, I don't see what the problem is ... take care of the ear deal and move on ... the breeder is supposed to pay for your vet bill? How do you figure? Take care of the minor ear issue and move on ...

Lynn T-R
Citrine

[ToscasMom]

Interesting first post.

[ToscasMom]

IP check in Aisle 6.

[FrenchKissed]

That's heartless. To some buying a dog isn't just a transaction- it's a life choice.


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.

[FrenchKissed]

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?


Legally obligated or not....if they want the breeder to deal with the problem Morally they were obligated to return the dog.
But then I guess MORALS only apply to the breeder, buyers can do whatever they please.

[ToscasMom]

Morally is not a legal term.

[FrenchKissed]

Morally is not a legal term.


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....

[ToscasMom]

The guy is legally right. Period

Now I shall go quiver.

[blue]

Illegals bank all the time apperently. Ive tried the take it to the bank with TM before, she dosent understand a 30 year old oil pipe line is different then a NG line that is still in the planning stages. Yould be better off trying to get through to Tosca.

[Buddy'sParents]

IP check in Aisle 6.

Done. ;)

[Buddy'sParents]

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 said "just a transaction". Get it? Buying a dog is not JUST a transaction to some. It's a LIFE choice.

When I found out that my puppy was blind in one eye and probably needed to have it removed should I have returned her? Even though her parents are free of any health issues and not one other pup from the litter was affected as she was?

Maybe in your ways, but NOT mine.

[sbfish]

Most reputable breeders wouldn't do things to cause their names being "slung thru mud". This person came here for advice- advice is what we give.

Depends on the area. Living in the bay area of Ca, myself, I'd say $700 isn't outrageous for the three treatments the dog received.

To the OP- wait until you have that contract in your hand and then go about whatever business you deem reasonable.

While we don't know both sides of the story, what I hear is pretty shady in regards to the breeder.

Thanks for clarifying my situation Buddy's Parents. My only intention to post my question here was to obtain information on what my rights and options are as a buyer in this situation. NOT to trash the breeder, if I did I would have mentioned them by name.

[Sapphire-Light]

Sorry if I don't undested this thread, but what diseases and posible infections need to be in a breeder guaranty? :confused:

For example if a puppy results with distemper or a stomash infection in a few days before you get, the breeder has to be responsible right?

But you have to talk with the breeder before you take it to the vet? and what if is an emergency and the breeder is not home??

[sbfish]

What's also tacky is telling someone that court of claims performs in a way it doesn't perform, such as "getting your head bitten off by the judge" when it simply couldn't be farther from the truth.

In fact, it's kind of boring in real life. You file your claim, tell them what you would like to see happen. You submit your invoices, tell your story and and judge asks for clarifications. Having no contract will work against the breeder a whole lot more than against the owner. Most purchases of items don't come with contracts anyways, but a contract might have protected the owner if it spelled out "what to do".

Most times, a claim doesn't even reach court, as vendors make offers to settle it.

Toscas Mom, I appreciate all the information you are providing regarding small claims. It is one option I am considering.

I emailed my question to the AKC and the response was " I would think that the breeder would be responsible if the vet can certify it is a pre-existing condition and if you are on good terms with the breeder, I think that one half of the vet bills would be a good amount to ask for. If the breeder does not want to do this, then it is your responsibility."

[Buddy'sParents]

Thanks for clarifying my situation Buddy's Parents. My only intention to post my question here was to obtain information on what my rights and options are as a buyer in this situation. NOT to trash the breeder, if I did I would have mentioned them by name.

You're welcome. It was obvious that you wanted advice and were not slinging anyone through any mud. I hope the best for you and your dog. I know what it's like to have sick dogs and not want to give up on them. I'm also a PM away. :)

[sbfish]

Question : Why did this breeder want to get rid of her 3 years old dog in the first place ??? Sorry if I missed this .

I originally went to look at a younger female the breeder had, but she was not the right temperment for my older female. As I was about to leave the breeder said there was another female that would be a better fit, though hadn't thought of selling her desiring to finish her first. And asked if I would be willing to leave ownership in the breeder's name and bring her to some shows occurring in my town until she finished. I didn't have a problem with this and agreed to it.

[sbfish]

So I guess the question is did the breeder sell two or more litters in the previous year?

Yes, the breeder has. Thank you for the link to CA laws.

[sbfish]

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....

This was an unintentional and unfortunate situation that occurred for all of us-breeder, dog, and myself. The breeder admitted not giving me the information to bring the dog back if a health issue should arise. Based on the information I acted in the best interest of the dog and now there is $700 in vet expenses. All I want is to identify reasonable and fair compensation.

[OutlineACDs]

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.

Sorry, but just because a breeder is listed on their breed club's website as a contact/member/ whatever does NOT guarantee the breeder's credibility. That is merely one step. To be a member of some breed clubs all you have to do is fill out an application, have a sponsor (who may or may not have ever dealt w/ that person), and pay your dues. There are members in my national breed club that have never bred a litter, and other members who have been breeding 30+ years. On the other end of the spectrum there are people in my local all breed club who have never shown a dog, there are also members who don't currently own dogs.

My point is, this may NOT be a responsible breeder. Who's to say this person didn't have 20 dogs in kennels and therefore wasn't aware of the ear infection? IMO, if this breeder was informed that the dog had a problem and then started in with the excuses, she may not be as honest as you think. Most breeders WANT you to get any new puppy/dog vet checked within 72 hours of purchase anyway.

Having top winning dogs does not make you an ethical person.

[OutlineACDs]

Sorry if I don't undested this thread, but what diseases and posible infections need to be in a breeder guaranty? :confused:

For example if a puppy results with distemper or a stomash infection in a few days before you get, the breeder has to be responsible right?

But you have to talk with the breeder before you take it to the vet? and what if is an emergency and the breeder is not home??

To answer your question, most breeders have in their contract that you have 72 hours after the purchase to have the puppy vet checked. If the vet finds anything wrong, the breeder should refund your money/give you another puppy.

[bubbatd]

If the breeder still has her in her name and planned to continue showing her , then I feel she should have enough interest to take care of the vet bills .

[Jynx]

I also agree with the above,,,You have phsyical possession of the dog, yet the "ownership" of the dog is in the breeders name. Legally that dog is still hers no matter what.

In fact, you could have paid her a million bucks and if the papers are still in her name, I'd think she still legally owns that dog.

Who would be paying for dog show entries? You or the breeder?

I think your best bet is to get a hold of that contract pronto and read it,,did you sign a contract?

diane

[sbfish]

I also agree with the above,,,You have phsyical possession of the dog, yet the "ownership" of the dog is in the breeders name. Legally that dog is still hers no matter what.

In fact, you could have paid her a million bucks and if the papers are still in her name, I'd think she still legally owns that dog.

Who would be paying for dog show entries? You or the breeder?

I think your best bet is to get a hold of that contract pronto and read it,,did you sign a contract?

diane

I was wondering if "ownership" still being in the breeder's name would make a difference in regards to obtaining financial compensation. The breeder is going to be paying for the dog show entries. Yes, I did sign a contract but she was in a hurry and wanted to get a copy and then would mail it to me.

[ToscasMom]

Do you have a cancelled check that you used to pay for the dog? A sales receipt?

[sbfish]

Do you have a cancelled check that you used to pay for the dog? A sales receipt?

Yes, I have access to the check on my online banking account which the breeder deposited for the dog. No sales receipt only a Pet Ownership Certificate copy from the Tattoo Registry- Tattoo-A-Pet. On the back of the copy it has a Transfer of Ownership form.

[ToscasMom]

sbfish, try not to split hairs. The dog is in your home. You didn't steal the dog. You paid for the dog. The dog got sick. You called the breeder. The breeder thought it was an ear cleaning issue over the phone. It wasn't. You required vet visits. You paid the vet bills and believe you are entitled to recompense. I am sure the breeder isn't going to accuse you of stealing the dog regardless of your disagreement here. Besides, that contract does not supercede the dog law in your state anyhow, so no need to worry that much about it, especially since you didn't have a copy in your hand when the problem began to begin with. And even if you did or the breeder wanted to say you did, it does not supercede the law no matter what it says. That's why the law it there. To protect people who purchase dogs.

So really,the best thing to do if you want recovery is to submit your form to the Court of Claims and go through the process. Nobody here can make a determination on this issue that can stick. Only the court and/or its arbitrator can do that. It most certainly does appear that you are within the law that Boemy posted in your request. Submitting the form is not really complex to do at all. When you see the form you will see that instead it's rather simple with plenty of leeway for you to have the complaint heard. This thread has been exponentially more work for you that that form will ever be, honest.

When you get the form, I would be happy to help you complete it. So now you really have to decide whether you want to do that.:)

[RedyreRottweilers]

Sue the breeder and your relationship is finished with them, along with many others.

I would pursue other means of resolving this issue, such as SPEAKING to the breeder, or a face to face meeting.

I will remind you again you are not in possession of any contract, so step lightly.

[MelissaCato]

9/7 visit, cytology, fungal med--$142
9/10 emergency fee, pain med--$131
9/11 sedation, ear wash, test, culture & sensitivity, meds--$426


:yikes: How much are single Office visits and Emerg Visit?

[bubbatd]

What did the contract say ?? You signed it .

[HoundedByHounds]

If I were you I'd listen hard to RR and FK both, for all the reasons they already mentioned.

Being sue happy is not the way to go...Americans are far too fond of that. SPEAKING with someone face to face and being accountable...both sides for what you may have or HAVE NOT done is what's going work.

[ToscasMom]

I will absolutely concede to you Hounded, that talking to the breeder first is the right first step. It is definitely what I myself would do first. However, if the breeder refuses to take at least part of the responsibility for these expenses, you should have all the rights and privileges of the law to aid you if you have been financially burdened unncessarily. In that case, it would not be considered sue happy, though. It would be considered recompense for an expense you should have not incurred. But hey who knows? Maybe the breeder will recognize that. If not then that is what the law is for.

However, it does look as though the breeder has made up her mind
The breeder is unwilling to offer any financial compensation for the bills

and would rather barter, providing me with another dog in the future or help me breed Haley (she has 8 pts). I am not wanting to barter.

[ToscasMom]

Life would be easier if we lived in a world of bartering chickens for pigs like the old days, eh? It sure would put a lot of lawyers out of business. But we don't live in that kind of world. We pay money for things and when things go wrong early on, we want our money back or refunds for costs. Because puppy is a living thing, it makes things more emotionally complex sometimes though.

[sbfish]

You paid the vet bills and believe you are entitled to recompense.

When you get the form, I would be happy to help you complete it. So now you really have to decide whether you want to do that.:)

What I have decided to do is revisit the issue with the breeder via a letter and attach copies of the vet bills. Toscas Mom if financial reimbursement is denied I will get in touch with you.

[sbfish]

This thread has been exponentially more work for you that that form will ever be, honest.

This is my first time to post a thread in a forum and didn't realize how it can take on a life of its own.

[Buddy'sParents]

This is my first time to post a thread in a forum and didn't realize how it can take on a life of its own.

Welcome to Chazhound! :D Where everything can take on a life of its own! ;)

[Dekka]

Welcome to Chazhound! Where everything can take on a life of its own!

heheheh chazhound as the model of the primordial soup....

[sbfish]

:yikes: How much are single Office visits and Emerg Visit?

Office call: $49
Ear Cytology: $65

Emergency fee: $45
examination fee: $47

[sbfish]

What did the contract say ?? You signed it .

Embarrassingly I don't remember.

[Buddy'sParents]

lol, dekka....

[sbfish]

If I were you I'd listen hard to RR and FK both, for all the reasons they already mentioned.

Being sue happy is not the way to go...Americans are far too fond of that. SPEAKING with someone face to face and being accountable...both sides for what you may have or HAVE NOT done is what's going work.

Going to court is absolutely the last thing I want to do and will attempt another conversation after she receives the letter. Also, I did not write anything in the letter about legal action.

[ToscasMom]

I suddenly have this urge to sing Kumbaya.

sbfish you have officially completed Pledging and Hell Night. You are now a real board member! Congratulations.

[planet molosser]

Dont forget a ethical breeder was thought of be the recent American Bulldog bust. They can seem ethical or start off ethical, but dont be fooled by websites.

I got to ask did you go get the puppy in person?
I ask this cause breeders will SHIP over states lines sick puppies more so then sell locally so they cant be sued easily.

Even thou I have never had this any disease I would refund full amount.

[Jynx]

I think I also would want to avoid court,,and I also agree with treading lightly since the dog is still in her name, money you've paid for her or not, that dog is legally owned by the breeder so she could come in and yank her out of your home no questions asked.

I guess I would probably do just what you are doing, but then again, I guess if I were you, I'd think long and hard about what I wanted...do you really want to keep this dog?? If so, I'd probably ask for 1/2 the vet bills at this point, and chalk it up to a learned experience. If she refuses, I'd ask her since I PAID for her, transfer ownership NOW.

But then again, you have a contract that your not sure what it states,,I'd get a copy of that and start reading..Good luck!
diane

[sbfish]

I got to ask did you go get the puppy in person?
I ask this cause breeders will SHIP over states lines sick puppies more so then sell locally so they cant be sued easily.

Even thou I have never had this any disease I would refund full amount.

Yes, I went and picked her up, she is 3 yrs old.

[sbfish]

I think I also would want to avoid court,,and I also agree with treading lightly since the dog is still in her name, money you've paid for her or not, that dog is legally owned by the breeder so she could come in and yank her out of your home no questions asked.

I guess I would probably do just what you are doing, but then again, I guess if I were you, I'd think long and hard about what I wanted...do you really want to keep this dog?? If so, I'd probably ask for 1/2 the vet bills at this point, and chalk it up to a learned experience. If she refuses, I'd ask her since I PAID for her, transfer ownership NOW.

But then again, you have a contract that your not sure what it states,,I'd get a copy of that and start reading..Good luck!
diane

I definitely want to keep her and in my letter I said my preference is to split the vet bills 50/50, but if she still wants to barter a puppy to me in the future at the full cost of the vet bills I would accept this and want it in writing. I am going to give her a call and request she send the contract ASAP.

[planet molosser]

By picking her up she could claim many things vs shipping and getting a unknown.

Hope it works out.

[malndobe]

RR and FK have some very good points. I would think LONG and hard about this before I would take the breeder to court. Exhaust all other avenues, (face to face meeting, phone calls, letters) then continue to think about this.

RR is right, if you sue the breeder your relationship is over. I don't know if this matters to you or not, but it sounds like you are supposed to have future dealings with this breeder, so a good relationship may be important. The dog is still in the breeder's name, and you have already agreed to turn the dog over to her for shows. Who's to say the dog will ever come back to your home after the first time you drop her off for a show? Until the dog is in your name, I wouldn't push to hard.

Personally I think a 50/50 split isn't unreasonable, the dog came to you with a problem brewing, but you made the decisions on what vet care to get for her. I don't think it's fair to try to hold the breeder 100% financially responsible for your medical decisions. I would also go back to the intial vet who saw her though, a proper diagnosis might have avoided most of this problem.

Also be aware that things may not go your way in court. You need to be prepared to loose the dog and/or have to pay any costs associated with the breeder having to go to court.

Finally, nothing against the OP, but we do only have 1 side of the story. I'm basing my post/opinion on that side only.

[ToscasMom]

California law ensures that OP will NOT lose the dog. Also, you don't go to court of claims as the claimant and end up losing the product, it deals strictly with monetary issues and whether a dollar amount should be paid to the claimant or not. OP's Breeder would have to countersue to recoup costs of going to court, which would be interesting since it will be in their own county.

[malndobe]

Are you a lawyer, or otherwise in a position to gaurantee this?
It sounds like, at least on paper, ownership of this dog could be challenged by the breeder. The papers are still all in their name, OP doesn't have a contract or bill of sale, etc. I wouldn't want to risk loosing the dog by angering the breeder until I had all the paperwork in order showing I owned the dog, and nobody else had any sort of claim to it.

[ToscasMom]

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?

[Emmalee]

Welcome to the forums.. hope all works out..

Maybe next time you get a dog from a breeder make sure you have a contract and read it next time.. perhaps memorize it.. lol ;)

Good Luck!! :)