I am sorry but to me it's just not that complicated. The breeder sold a sick pup...not a sign of a good breeder to me. The buyer thought the pup would get better with treatment and was willing to take care of the issue. The dog did not recover as quickly as was hoped. The breeder should have taken care of this...whether the buyer was the one who actually took the dog to the vet or not. The illness came from her! She should pay!! It is the right thing to do. A contract is something you have to protect yourself from unscrupulous buyers...not to escape responsibility when it is the right thing to do!! Hang the contract...or the law!! Just take care of your responsibility...don't change your contract...just don't sell sick pups...pretty darn simple!!!
Wagging Tails in the Dog Park! Deanna and the Dog Park Gang: Nugget, Shuai Li, Mable, Mouse, Myrtle, Madison, Caleb and Maxine >From the mountains of CA http://swlf.lilyslim.com/v3T7m8.png?h9j6wId9 On Feb 12, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Liz Bickel & Irv Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > In the light of day, there seems to be problems on both sides of this issue. > > Since the health problem with the pup in question was detected immediately, > the buyer should have either not taken the puppy or else returned it before > running up excessive vet bills. I absolutely do not believe that the buyer > took one look at the pup and instantly formed a lifetime bond. So something > is fishy in the State of Denmark. The buyer's refusal to name the vet > caring for the puppy is questionable, too. > > This later could have perhaps been avoided had the Breeder properly screened > the buyer before the pup left her home. > > If this occurred in a state without a Puppy Lemon law (and if a properly > written contract was signed by both buyer & seller), then the seller does not > legally owe the buyer anything more than what is stated in the contract. So > in this case, the seller is going beyond her contract with a willingness to > take the pup back after a week. > > I agree that there has to be some end point to this matter. With the option > of returning the pup during the entire first week, the buyer needs to either > accept that she is responsible for the future health care of this pup or else > return the pup for a refund. Return after a week will be emotionally more > difficult than return after 1 day. Not to mention more costly if the vet > bills are indeed adding up. However, with a binding contract in effect, the > buyer has to either pay her own vet bills or else return the pup. In this > case, the seller is not legally responsible for ongoing vet bills. > > Unfortunately, I have not heard the Breeder mention a concern for the actual > puppy. This all seems to be a money matter. To me, that is very sad. The > welfare of the puppy should be everyone's main concern. If the buyer truly is > some sort of scam artist, I sure would want to get that pup back for the > welfare of the pup - not just because I didn't want to pay vet bills. > > The Breeder originally admitted that the pup was ill when it left her house, > Therefore, I seriously question the Breeder's selling practices. For the > welfare of that pup, it should not have left the Breeder's home while being > ill. The Breeder has also admitted to having other ill pups (presumably from > living in the cold), but she would not say what has happened to them. They > had also been "pre sold" like the pup that is now in question. Is she > keeping them until they are well? Or haven't her other buyers noticed that > they "have a cold"? > > A cold, constant 56 degree temperature is not a proper environment to be > raising Chihuahua puppies. IMHO, if one cannot afford to have heat in the > home, that individual probably also cannot afford the luxury of properly > breeding Chihuahua puppies. As I stated before, breeding and raising > Chihuahuas can cost a lot of money if you do it right. Even those Breeders, > who can afford to heat our homes, can feel the pinch of the expenses of > breeding Chihuahuas. > > When owning both the mother and father - and without having any complications > - raising a single litter (of one to 4 pups average) can routinely end up > costing hundreds and hundred of dollars; that is if the Breeder does the > proper medical care involved in producing a litter. Add in breeding with > good genetics in mind, the price of having a litter will significantly go up. > Add in unforeseen medical emergencies, the cost of a litter can jump into > the thousands of dollars more. Even if you get premium prices for your > pups, you generally still end up in the red in the long term. Chihuahua > breeding can be a very expensive hobby and is probably not the best choice > for one who cannot afford to even heat their home. > > If you don't do it right and cut costs, however, breeding dogs can earn a > profit. That's why there are so many BYB'ers and Mills in business. I know > nothing about the OP beyond what she has told us. However, she has made it > clear that she is breeding these little dogs to sell (and quickly) rather > than breeding mainly to better the Breed. > > As someone else here has said, breeding is a lifetime commitment to whatever > pups you produce. This doesn't mean the Breeder is responsible for all > future medical bills in the lifetime of those pups. As this Breeder has > said, things sometimes happen which no Breeder has control over. > > I know of 100% responsible, ethical, show breeder who have had an outbreak of > Kennel Cough just at the point when their pups were ready to go to new homes. > Like the common cold, even the cleanest and best families can get Kennel > Cough. There are many strains out there that cannot be vaccinated against. > Most of those strains are relatively harmless and don't require antibiotics, > but - if even one single dog in their care had Kennel Cough - those breeders > would not let any of their pups (even healthy ones) go to new homes until all > their dogs were completely free of even a hint of Kennel Cough. I sincerely > doubt that the OP would do that. She can correct me if I'm wrong. > > A responsible Breeder does not sell known "sick" puppies just to get them > out of the house. They will also stand behind all of their pups and will > work with the New Family to see that each pup has a good life for life. > Obviously since there is already antagonism between Buyer and Seller, that > isn't going to happen in this case. The Breeder did have control over the > "cold" in this pup that left her home with an illness. Also when the Buyer > initially complained the very first day about the pup being sick, the Breeder > should have insisted that the pup be immediately returned to her. > > Marsha, if you are reading this, consider adding this clause to your future > contracts. It may help to keep you out of situations such as you've > currently found yourself in. Any pup found to be ill within the first 48 > hours of leaving the Breeder's home must be returned to the Breeder for a > full refund or until the pup is again well - Buyer's discretion. > > IMHO, both parties are in their own way at fault in this particular > situation. And the pup is the pawn in between. I hope it all ends well for > the pup. > > Liz >
