German Shepherds Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I purchased a puppy from A breeder that in California. I got her at 6 weeks old i do have the receipt proving the date i got here and proving her age was just 6 weeks old.
the puppy i purchased from day one was sick with diarrhea it was so bad that even sometimes the puppy poop a white liquid. it was the day 14 the diarrhea never gone. I get concerned about my puppy health issue. I took the puppy to the vet and test her. the vet informed me with paper report that she has a Purvo +. I text the breeder informing her that if it is possible to return the sick pup and get my money back. she said that she have 3 more puppies in her kennel that she can't have a the risk of a sick puppy between them. She reply to me that she going to ask her friend that who does rescue to get the puppy i purchased from the breeder without giving me a penny back. I refuse and tell here the puppy seems to be fine but I'm not longer interested to have a puppy at that time so day 16 from purchasing the puppy i had her back to the breeder. She signed me a paper that we would get a puppy for free next time while I'm ready for taking care of a puppy. She really have bad attitude towards me and other costumer complain too. I really hope that i can sue her for giving me a sick puppy and refuse to give me a full refund plus the vet expenses that i paid for Purvo test. My question's is it possible to sue her for selling underage puppies.? Is it possible to sue her to get my full money back as a refund.? even though when i paid for the puppy i signed a contract claim that the breeder only responsible about the puppy sickness for the first week after purchased. by the law of California as i have all the text and paper report that prove it. thanks for reading.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,884 Posts
It's possible to sue anyone for anything. Bottom line 'though, you are being unreasonable. I think you mean parvo rather than purvo. Doesn't sound like really parvo because to have that quick a recovery is rather amazing.
What's going to count is the law in your jurisdiction but since you got the note for a free exchange puppy, I don't know what more you expect or want.
If it is against the law to place a pup at 6 weeks where you live assuming the breeder is in the same state, you could have charges filed against the breeder - but it won't count for crap in civil court because it is hard to see what damages you incurred. Any pup can get sick and need vet care.
If the pup got sick after the first week, then according to the contract it is not the breeders responsibility. It is fairly standard practice to take the pup to the vet within the first week of getting it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,021 Posts
Parvo is not something they magically heal from. Not all states have a law stating pups have to be 8 weeks. There is no way to prove the pup had parvo before you got it. In fact if no other pups had it, there is a good chance your pup contracted the disease in your care.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,519 Posts
I recall reading that California is one of the states with pretty strong consumer protections at least as far as commercial breeders (selling multiple litters per year) are concerned. Google "California dog lemon law" to pull up lots of info.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
What in the world do you think you're going to win in a law suit?? It's a puppy, if you expected they wouldn't need vet care at some point. You clearly aren't ready for a dog.
You're getting a free puppy in the next litter. You won't win anything else, just spend more money on court costs and contribute to the continuing decline of what's wrong in this country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
California does have lemon laws that protects the buyer, i had an issue with a breeder years ago with a yorkie that we purchased from her, Penny (our yorkie) ended up having genetic issues that cost a lot in vet bills (she advertised that she tested her dogs for genetics issues before breeding but that ended up not being true), we got in contact with the breeder and she covered all of our vet bills.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
32,033 Posts
In California it is illegal to sell under 8 weeks old, "unless approved by Cal. licensed vet."

https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-state-laws-concerning-minimum-age-sale-puppies

And then there's this about selling sick dogs:

"§ 122160. Ill or diseased dog; remedies of purchaser

(a) If a licensed veterinarian states in writing that within 15 days after the purchaser has taken physical possession of the dog after the sale by a pet dealer, the dog has become ill due to any illness that existed in the dog on or before delivery of the dog to the purchaser, or, if within one year after the purchaser has taken physical possession of the dog after the sale, a veterinarian licensed in this state states in writing that the dog has a congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the dog, or that requires, or is likely in the future to require, hospitalization or nonelective surgical procedures, the dog shall be considered unfit for sale, and the pet dealer shall provide the purchaser with any of the following remedies that the purchaser elects:

(1) Return the dog to the pet dealer for a refund of the purchase price, plus sales tax, and reimbursement for reasonable veterinary fees for diagnosis and treating the dog in an amount not to exceed the original purchase price of the dog, plus sales tax.

(2) Exchange the dog for a dog of the purchaser's choice of equivalent value, providing a replacement dog is available, and reimbursement for reasonable veterinary fees for diagnosis and treating the dog in an amount not to exceed the original purchase price of the dog, plus sales tax.

(3) Retain the dog, and reimbursement for reasonable veterinary fees for diagnosis and treating the dog in an amount not to exceed 150 percent of the original purchase price of the dog, plus sales tax on the original purchase price of the dog."


That does refer to "pet dealer" though, not sure if it's the same for a breeder. Here's a link to the page on California laws: https://www.animallaw.info/statute/ca-pet-sales-chapter-5-sale-dogs-and-cats#s122155

It might be worth filing in Small Claims Court.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,884 Posts
breeder offered the pup at 6 weeks , but YOU TOOK the pup so you are in it as much for blame.

"the puppy i purchased from day one was sick with diarrhea it was so bad that even sometimes the puppy poop a white liquid. "

you couldn't see the pup was unwell? The house must have had an offensive sewer smell.

You should have received a vet health certificate
confirming dog is in good condition, accompanied
with a record of worming dates and by which anti helmintic .

You should have taken pup to the
vet for a physical
within 48 hours of taking pup home .

did you wait 14 days before going to the vet?

that , if that is the case , does not sound like parvo - especially for such a young , ill , pup , would have been life-threatening , long before 14 days.

so , on day 14 the dog was ill to point of concern - 2 days later your thinking is

"puppy seems to be fine but I'm not longer interested to have a puppy at that time so day 16 from purchasing the puppy "

that is not how parvo resolves .

I think you are no longer interested in having a pup.
You say so yourself .

"is it possible to sue her for selling underage puppies"

It takes two parties to make a contract.

You could have said - this is the pup I am interested in , here is a deposit, please keep this one until it is ready to go , 3 weeks later.

Who had the interest of the pup in mind ?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
32,033 Posts
breeder offered the pup at 6 weeks , but YOU TOOK the pup so you are in it as much for blame.
Yes, the OP made a mistake. Maybe several mistakes. But I don't think it's fair to bash her for not knowing any better. The "breeder" who sold her the puppy should know the laws regarding age to sell, while most consumers probably don't.

Who is more at fault? The person who either knew that what they were doing violated state law and did it anyway (or didn't even bother to find out what the law said before breeding and selling puppies), or the person who unwittingly purchased an underage puppy?

Personally, I think it's the former, not the latter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,206 Posts
People need to take responsibility for doing their homework. Ignorance should not be an excuse when it involves lives.

I get annoyed when there is no research done, shortcuts taken or spur of the moment impulse purchases...the animal is usually the one to suffer.
Buying a pup at 6 weeks and then not vetting the puppy is setting that pup up to fail from the get go. Wasn't there a vet visit within the first 72 hours in the contract?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,904 Posts
People need to take responsibility for doing their homework. Ignorance should not be an excuse when it involves lives.

I get annoyed when there is no research done, shortcuts taken or spur of the moment impulse purchases...the animal is usually the one to suffer.
Buying a pup at 6 weeks and then not vetting the puppy is setting that pup up to fail from the get go. Wasn't there a vet visit within the first 72 hours in the contract?
I agree so wholeheartedly with this. We preach about an educated public being the only thing that will curb BSL and dogs in shelters. We can't coddle those whose are ignorant. No it may not help this poster, but maybe the next?

We see so many, " I know it was wrong but", or " this is when the breeder said to pick it up", or "I couldn't afford a breeder puppy so I found a great deal on a purebred on Craigslist". It's overwhelming the amount of allowed ignorance. Sometimes people need to understand that they put themselves into a bad situation and take responsibility for their bad choices, and not blame someone else.

To the OP, you learned a valuable lesson. Take it to heart and do your research and find an actual reputable breeder to get a puppy from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
How is it that a person can find a forum to ask for advice on what they can sue for but that same person couldn't find a way to do ANY research before taking responsibility for a life?
No sympathy at all, except for the poor pup. What on earth is the op going to do if they end up with a baby who vomits after every feeding for the first 6-8 months?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,833 Posts
Lots of people buy and sell puppies at six weeks old. Just like lots of people fail to license their dogs. Lots of people drive over the speed limit.

You can argue that driving ten miles over isn't hurting anyone, but you can also argue that people have been taking puppies home at six weeks for decades.

From a breeding standpoint, this is one fellow I would want to return the purchase price to. Why? Because I wouldn't want to deliver another puppy into his hands. Who waits 14 days to take a puppy with diarrhea, bad diarrhea to the vet???

We have ways to research breeders and find out if people we might buy a pup from may have not pleased every person they ever did business with, but breeders have no way to research buyers -- we have an on-line list of people to never sell a puppy to ever. We are on our own, and everyone is ok with that. We can ask for vet references/ training references/ landlord's number, etc. But if someone says he is a first-time buyer, we really have to go with our gut. And, sometimes, that blows up. But someone has to sell to first-time buyers.

So the breeder is selling pups that are, by state law, too young.
The buyer didn't take the pup to the vet, until two weeks later, and then returned the puppy, when it is just as likely the pup became ill because of what the dude was feeding him, stress, environment, etc.

The buyer wants to sue.

I bet the breeder would like to deck the guy for letting the pup go so long and not trying to get it fixed, or calling, or bringing it back much sooner.

The breeder should give the guy his money back so they never have to look at him again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,206 Posts
the breeder should have screened the buyer to be certain the buyer was aware and knowledgeable. It is on the buyer of course, but good responsible breeders won't just let their pups go anywhere. This breeder doesn't sound responsible whatsoever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,381 Posts
sure! Sure you can sue! Let's recap your post.

1. You bought a puppy, knowing he was only 6 weeks.
2. You waited 2 full weeks to take a sick puppy to a vet, which constitutes neglect.
3. You returned the puppy to the breeder knowing you would receive no refund beforehand.
4. You accepted a document stating you would get a replacement puppy with no refund.
5. You then changed your mind on wanting a puppy at this point in your life.

oh wait..what was the question???
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,833 Posts
the breeder should have screened the buyer to be certain the buyer was aware and knowledgeable. It is on the buyer of course, but good responsible breeders won't just let their pups go anywhere. This breeder doesn't sound responsible whatsoever.
Yes, it is on both the breeder and the buyer. The breeder is selling pups too young to buyers that are not responsible. Chances are the breeder is similar in maturity, ethics, and knowledge as the buyer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Thanks everyone for your thoughts., it's all good advice. first when i adopt the puppy i knew it should be at least 8 weeks old. Then i search their website they sound to have a high rate and a good repetition i asked the breeders multiple time before getting the puppy that i picked from the litter are they all ready to go their new home, breeder state yes. at first i believed them, then i thought that the breeder seems to have financial issues that's why their were in rush having the cash fast .The puppy already came with vet record and first shots, so i thought it wasn't necessarily to get the puppy into vet for another check. Like some of the answer here I believe suing them it's not the way to go. 1)its time consuming. 2) the state has a lot of issues more important to go threw it. They really have bad attitude towards me and my brother, moreover we decided to not have a replacement puppy from them. None of their dogs are titled or champion as the claimed once. They have poor temperament as well. After lot of arguments with the breeders they accept to gave us half of the price back. I'm just thinking of there is a way to report them to the AKC so they don't do it again for other customers.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top