# Buying a Puppy Your Rights and the LAW!



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

I have just had a very interesting conversatoin with a man from trading standards because i was curious as to exactly what peoples rights are under the law.

The law is impersonal. The same laws which apply for a new washing machine, also cover the sale of pets.

Ok

The man gave me some examples so if you have:


bought a pup (kc reg or not) who has false pedigree information
bought a pup who is sick, and you have veterinary proof it came to you sick
bought a pup who has a condition that could have been health tested for
bought a pup having been told its parents were health tested - but find later they werent
bought a pup who you were aware hadnt been health tested, but were told the pup was in good health
bought a pup you knew it wasnt health tested, but you were not made aware as to what the implications could mean for your dog

**3-6 the pup must develop one of the conditions or diseases that could have been tested for.

The two pieces of law that generally apply here for these:

*1 - MISREPRESENTATION*

A false statement on a website, written, verbal to encourage you to make the purchase

*2 - Sale Of Goods Act 1979*

You have the right for your purchase to be 

free from faults
last a reasonable length of time
be fit for purpose
not misdiscribed

Under both pieces of law you can take the breeder to court. The breeder if proven to be at fault is likely to be asked to do one or more of the following:


refund full purchase price
replace faulty item
cover any additional costs incurred

Found it very interesting myself, and hope this will be useful for breeders and prospective buyers (or those unfortunate to have been duped) alike.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

I want to add

I was given examples but they are not an extensive list of how the law could be applied.


----------



## oldDoubletrouble (Sep 21, 2009)

Nice work BBM!
Hopefully this can be made a sticky in Breeding!
DT


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

this would be a great sticky!!


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Thanks for that, very interesting, I knew they were classed as property so it stands to reason, if you are sold something that is faulty then you have the rights to do something about it, sadly if the breeder offers to exchange the dog, more often than not you are already attached and it would be hard to accept an exchange.

Mo


----------



## ad_1980 (Jan 28, 2009)

OMG well done  sticky please!!!!


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

the breeder would be liable for any vet fees resulting, right?


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

moboyd said:


> Thanks for that, very interesting, I knew they were classed as property so it stands to reason, if you are sold something that is faulty then you have the rights to do something about it, sadly if the breeder offers to exchange the dog, more often than not you are already attached and it would be hard to accept an exchange.
> 
> Mo


Yes

Unfortunatly due to the way the law works it makes no distinction between a living animal or a fridge freezer! While i would happily accept a replacement fridge freezer, i'm sure i wouldnt with a dog.

However i do think that more people should be aware of their rights, and if breeders were frightened of being hit where it hurts (their pockets) then there would be less unscrupulous breeding happening.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Natik said:


> the breeder would be liable for any vet fees resulting, right?


yes... if the court awards those fees to the claimant. If the court awards any costs resulting from the actions of the breeder to the claimant then yes - that would include all the vet fees.

It all depends on what the judge decides is suitable.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2009)

not if he agrees to change the dog


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

I presume this would go through the small claims court?

Mo


----------



## muse08 (Dec 21, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> I have just had a very interesting conversatoin with a man from trading standards because i was curious as to exactly what peoples rights are under the law.
> 
> The law is impersonal. The same laws which apply for a new washing machine, also cover the sale of pets.
> 
> ...


Presumably this applies if you have purchased a puppy from someone who is a business ie sells pups for a living.

Otherwise if bought from a private seller the following would apply.
I found this on a council trading standards live stock web site not sure if the same rules apply but as pups/dogs are live stock thehn i should immagine they would.

"Civil law
When you buy goods from a trader (for example, a farmer), a contract is entered into. The law gives you certain implied, or automatic, statutory rights under this contract.

The sale of goods act 1979 (as amended) says that goods should be:

Of satisfactory quality - goods must meet the standards that any reasonable person would expect, taking into account the description, price and all other relevant information. In some circumstances, the retailer may be liable for any statement made by the manufacturer about the goods. Satisfactory quality includes the goods' appearance and finish, safety and durability and freedom from defects (including minor faults).
Fit for purpose - that goods of this type are generally sold for this purpose. They must also be fit for any specific or particular purpose made known to the seller at the time of the agreement.
As described - Goods should correspond with any description applied to them.
In business-to-business transactions, the seller can put restrictions into the terms and conditions of the contract but these would only apply if they were fair under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

*However:
When you buy goods from a private individual, you do not have the same rights as when buying from a trader. The legal principle of caveat emptor (or 'buyer beware') operates. You have no rights to expect that goods be of satisfactory quality or fit for their purpose, but there is a requirement that they should be 'as described'. You should check goods thoroughly before you buy them.

If any of the above is not met then there would be a breach of contract and redress is possible. Consequential loss can also apply"*
Would be interesting to find out if this is the case.


----------



## Acacia86 (Dec 30, 2008)

Excellent post! Thanks for that.

Definately should be a sticky!


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

moboyd said:


> I presume this would go through the small claims court?
> 
> Mo


yes most of the time... although it depends on the amounts in question, the part of the law its being claimed under.

But yes - most of the time its small claims, but can occasionally go infront of a judge rather than just a magistrate.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

muse08 said:


> Presumably this applies if you have purchased a puppy from someone who is a business ie sells pups for a living.
> 
> Otherwise if bought from a private seller the following would apply.
> I found this on a live stock web site not sure if the same rules apply but as pups/dogs are live stock thehn i should immagine they would.
> ...


No...

Just checked this with another man at trading standards.

A breeder of animals is classed as a trader not a private individual.

A private individual would only be true for a one off sale, so maybe get away with it for a first litter... beyond that then no.

He also mentioned that if a breeder wanted to use the defence of being a private individual then that could only be clarified in court by the judge as it is a rather grey area.

Private seller would still be responsible for the description (misrepresentation again) and the quality of the purchased item. By quality they can still be sued for most of the examples i have been given.

Then yes of course you still have breach of contract (yes these pups are healthy mate  ), and they can still claim for compensation for their costs incurred.

sw627219


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

I also thought dogs do not come under the same juresdiction as "livestock" if I remember rightly I will look at the defra site, I am sure it was on there.

Mo


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

moboyd said:


> I also thought dogs do not come under the same juresdiction as "livestock" if I remember rightly I will look at the defra site, I am sure it was on there.
> 
> Mo


i'm pretty sure they dont, lemme know how you get on though x


----------



## muse08 (Dec 21, 2008)

billyboysmammy said:


> i'm pretty sure they dont, lemme know how you get on though x


My husband works for defra i shall ask him when he gets home.
Basically though if anyone buys a pup off a pet breeder who has bred as a one off its caveat emptor (or 'buyer beware').


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

I have just been trying to find it, but got a bit of headache and the type is awful, I remember something on the lines of that dogs are classed as property and shackles?.

Mo


----------



## james1 (Sep 21, 2008)

muse08 said:


> Presumably this applies if you have purchased a puppy from someone who is a business ie sells pups for a living.


If there is a sales mandate then there is contractual proof obliging them to be governed by trading standards. It is not a gift if contracts are signed and money is exchanged, whether its a business or hobby they'd still fall under this 'legal' agreement of supply/demand and should be responsible for anything they provide/sell id think.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

moboyd said:


> I have just been trying to find it, but got a bit of headache and the type is awful, I remember something on the lines of that dogs are classed as property and shackles?.
> 
> Mo


yes

they are classified as any normal purchase

fridge
coffee maker
puppy!


----------



## chipthebeagle (Oct 11, 2009)

I bought my puppy last sat - and he was ill by the sunday (Parvo) I incurred Vet fees of £200 - so if I took him to court would I win??


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

chipthebeagle said:


> I bought my puppy last sat - and he was ill by the sunday (Parvo) I incurred Vet fees of £200 - so if I took him to court would I win??


no-one is going to be able to tell you whether you would win or not.

Has the vet said he must have been ill when he came to you?

If so and if i were you and you felt strongly enough to go to court, then i would be on the phone to a solicitor in the morning!


----------



## chipthebeagle (Oct 11, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> no-one is going to be able to tell you whether you would win or not.
> 
> Has the vet said he must have been ill when he came to you?
> 
> If so and if i were you and you felt strongly enough to go to court, then i would be on the phone to a solicitor in the morning!


 Yes the Vet said he was ill when he came to us. It takes 7-10 days for syptoms of Parvo - and he was confirmed on the monday (48 hours after he came into our home) He was showing symptoms on the sunday morning though.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

then its up to you...

i would talk to a solicitor for some advice


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

you could also give consumer direct a ring...

they are the trading standard telephone team


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*And what if the buyer signs a contract stating that parents have not had the health tests available?*


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

EDIT:

The examples i were given and posted ARE NOT the only ways that liability can be proved.

For further information

Contact one of the following:

Trading standards
consumer direct
solicitor


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

chipthebeagle said:


> I bought my puppy last sat - and he was ill by the sunday (Parvo) I incurred Vet fees of £200 - so if I took him to court would I win??


did you buy him from a beagle breeder?? they likely to pay up.


----------



## Natik (Mar 9, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *And what if the buyer signs a contract stating that parents have not had the health tests available?*


im kinda sure the buyer would have to be made aware what health tests are and mean for the dog and must understand it clearly....


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *And what if the buyer signs a contract stating that parents have not had the health tests available?*


Contracts are tricky things to draw up.

It would have to be a recognised legal document and be witnessed independently i think.

Even then not sure it would stand up.


----------



## Small~Fluffy (Mar 13, 2009)

*Im not sure any of this actually would stand up in a court of law.
Mainly because the "Breeder" has a get out clause.

They offer you a replacement.

In the eyes of the law that may be enough??
But as we all know who would want there beloved puppy/dog replaced...

If it were a fridge you would accept full replacement of faulty goods but when you love an animal what then...

I have been in this situation 
**********************************************************

As for the lady who's pup has Parvo, contact your Breeder, as she may not have known or seen any signs & would hopefully have built a relationship with you before you purchased your pup.
Im sure she would have given you Insurance but would be willing to pay the Vet fee's for this.

Hopefully they will help *


----------



## muse08 (Dec 21, 2008)

I would contact the breeder as she should/can enquire with the new owners of the rest of the litter too to see if any of them have it.
Unfortunately i dont think any of the free insurances policies cover the first 14 days.


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

Small~Fluffy said:


> *Im not sure any of this actually would stand up in a court of law.
> Mainly because the "Breeder" has a get out clause.
> 
> They offer you a replacement.
> ...


Surely that would depend...

on whether you have incurred other costs too - vet fees etc


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

I would imagine that if a breeder did let a pup go away with parvo and the vet costs were incurred rather than having to refund with an exchange of dog AND the vet costs, they would prefer to leave the dog with you now its better and pay the shortfall of vet fees? just exchanging the dog would not cover the cost of the vets charges.

Mo


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

hi,
i think it is very difficult to draw a good contract. 
having said that, i think that there are a few things that should be there including:
all clause MUST be VALID THROUGHOUT The WHOLE life of the dog;
*a clause of no destruction*;
*a first point of contact* for any and every change of circumstances (health or otherwise)
the pup MUST be seen by *the new holder's vet within 3 days of placement* and report over to the breeder (this has the advantage of reassuring the new holder that the pup is fine but also alert the breeder is something is not right and the breeder's veterinarian has not picked up...like a second opinion that all is well and sound)

i prefer to keep the dogs chipped in my name (and so far the new holders haven;t had anything against it), it is not a proof of ownership, but it gives the breeder peace of mind that the pup is well treated.

*a clause that states the allowed purposes of the pup* (ie. as pet only....) not for breeding, fighting or intimidation (my pups will be very big...)
a declaration that states that the *information given in the application form* are true.

Failure to comply with the conditions of placement, the responsible holder will be held for the breach of the agreement and liable of damages caused to the dogs, the breeder and to third parties.

on the other hand:

the breeder (well me) takes responsibility of any "faults that can be with the pup:
Should the dog be determined to be in ill health, the cause of which is clearly attributable to the breeder, the dog may, upon written diagnosis from veterinarian, be returned to the breeder immediately after the diagnosis and a refund of the placement fees will be made.

i think that a contract with these terms is pretty much bombproof for the breeder and for the new holder...

safe, obviously the recourse to the Court of Law if there is an irredeemable dispute...

if you have any other idea, i doubt i will change my contract now, but i suppose i can improve them for the next pup.

what do you think?

Thanks D


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> hi,
> i think it is very difficult to draw a good contract.
> having said that, i think that there are a few things that should be there including:
> all clause MUST be VALID THROUGHOUT The WHOLE life of the dog;
> ...


I dont know enough about contracts i'm afriad.

Hopefully someone will come along. x


----------



## Small~Fluffy (Mar 13, 2009)

Surely that would depend...

on whether you have incurred other costs too - vet fees etc

*
BBM

Sadly no, we had large vet bills.
I can't understand the logic but have been very cautious since.

I don't think any Breeder can give a absolute guarantee on the selling of a puppy, 
But they should be honest throughout*


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

dimkaz said:


> hi,
> i think it is very difficult to draw a good contract.
> having said that, i think that there are a few things that should be there including:
> all clause MUST be VALID THROUGHOUT The WHOLE life of the dog;
> ...


As far as I am aware, unless the contract is drawn up and signed witnessed by a solictitor, the contract is not enforceable? I have contracts with my puppy owners (3 pages long) but this is more to try and hopefully get the owners to be responsible, also, if the puppy owner pass the pup onto someone else, then the contract does not apply to the new owners.

Mo


----------



## dimkaz (Jul 27, 2009)

moboyd said:


> As far as I am aware, unless the contract is drawn up and signed witnessed by a solictitor, the contract is not enforceable? I have contracts with my puppy owners (3 pages long) but this is more to try and hopefully get the owners to be responsible, also, if the puppy owner pass the pup onto someone else, then the contract does not apply to the new owners.
> 
> Mo


i don;t think you'll need a solicitor as witness ...
as long as it is signed by both parties, then it is fully enforceable.
i have added a clause that states exactly that case you mention:
_It is understood that the terms of the application (application form) are true and given in good faith. In any case, if at any time the responsible holder can no longer care for the dog, the breeder is to be notified IMMEDIATELY and will lead the re-homing process, transfer the placement to a new responsible holder or take the dog under his care. The fees derived from re-homing will pertain to the named responsible holder save the costs incurred by the breeder in caring for the dog and/or locating a new home. The cost will be calculated at the actual costs incurred and the time spent at the actual rate of the breeders current salary._


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

I think whats being forgotten here

None of us (that i know of) are solicitors, and none of us experts in consumer law, we cannot advise people with regards to the law, all we can do is tell them what their rights are.

The law exists to protect consumers.

The information i gathered came directly from trading standards

It should NOT be something that is the cause of a debate. 

No matter which way you fluff it up, dogs are seen as comoddities, and as such the purchase is protected under law.

Those laws are just as enforcable for a puppy as they would be if you bought a faulty telephone!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

billyboysmammy said:


> I think whats being forgotten here
> 
> None of us (that i know of) are solicitors, and none of us experts in consumer law, we cannot advise people with regards to the law, all we can do is tell them what their rights are.
> 
> ...


I agree - the law is a minefield and you need a degree in it to understand how it works. A contract that seems sensible to we laypersons could probably be ripped to shreds by a solicitor, and anyone giving law advice on here could potentially open themselves up to lawsuits if their advice is followed and it turns out to be wrong. As billyboysmammy says, it is better to understand the trading standard information so that you know what to do should you ever find yourself in such a position.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I agree - the law is a minefield and you need a degree in it to understand how it works. A contract that seems sensible to we laypersons could probably be ripped to shreds by a solicitor, and anyone giving law advice on here could potentially open themselves up to lawsuits if their advice is followed and it turns out to be wrong. As billyboysmammy says, it is better to understand the trading standard information so that you know what to do should you ever find yourself in such a position.


totally agree hence my saying that a solicitor was required, and I am all for customer rights, as well as the breeders too.

Mo


----------



## Rick (Aug 30, 2009)

With regards to contracts, 
I have a friend who is a lawyer and he assures me that contracts are unenforcable if it cannot be proven that they have been read.

If it matters to you when drawing up a contract either have it witnessed or at the very least have it signed on every page and/or after every point you consider to be of particular importance.

A signature at the end of a multi page document is not enough.


----------



## moboyd (Sep 29, 2009)

funnily enough my contract has the buyer, sign/inital efter each and every stipulation, stating they have read and understood it, the reason I did that was because some time ago, there was problems with people breeding from dogs that had endorsements on their regisitration, and the breeders ended having their refusal to allow registration because the "owners" said they had not been informed by the breeder that they could not breed from the dog at a later date, so I had it where no one could ever say that I had not told them if I include everything in the contract, and get them to sign at each point.

Mo


----------



## billyboysmammy (Sep 12, 2009)

sounds like a good contract to me moby!

Just bumping this up for noushka!


----------

