Health Problem with Dog just purchased from Breeder

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.