Health Problem with Dog just purchased from Breeder

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.
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

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.