My son sold a puppy a few weeks ago. Two days before the pup was collected it was checked by the vet and had its jab. The pup coughed once while being examined and son raised this with vet who said the pup was fine. New owners came to collect , son says take to your own vet within 2 days, anything not happy with, bring back for full refund.
Two days later new owner takes to own vet, pup is coughing, vet says respiratory tract infection and gives antibiotics. Another week later, puppy is still coughing, owner goes back to vet who now thinks maybe lungworm.
Owner contacts son at this point and son offers to pay for treatment of lungworm, as Rest of litter developed cough a few days after first one was sold.
As he had heard nothing from owner presumed all was well with that pup.
son took other pups to vet and got treatment for suspected lungworm, panacur 7 day course. followed up with further 7 day course, all now healthy and recovered.
The puppy that was sold has been to vets 6 times in all, first antibiotics for a week, then panacur for 3 days, then stool sample, then panacur 7 days, now on panacur for 3 weeks and also advocate. Report says puppy is alert and feeding well. the bill is now almost £300, and vet is advising that xrays need to be done in the future.
Now as all the other pups were given 7 day course and a follow up course and all recovered, son thinks the vet may be ekeing the treatment out for financial gain.
Owner wants son to pay for all of vets bill including any further xray and treatment that may be neccesary. Or wants a refund of the purchase price , but doesn't want to return the puppy as it is now part of the family.
She says that under sale of goods act, he is responsible.
What do you think he should do?

.

He could remind her that under the Sale of Goods Act if you refuse a return and full refund you have released the seller from the contract.  I would now offer to pay no more that the other pups individual vets bill amounted to in return for a signed release and then leave them to continue taking responsibility for the future of what is now their puppy unless something else is revealed in these investigations other than the lung worm such as a heart anomoly.

I think really he should have returned pup as it was unfit for sale and then bills would have been under your sons control then he could have collected pup once recovered. Do you have this clause in the puppy agreement. If puppy deemed unfit for sale it MUST be returned to breeder immeditely.

I think now at least half the moneys should be paid but no more as they havent brought the pup back.

Louise

Thank you both for your input, much appreciated. There was no wrritten contract, just a verbal agreement between them. Son advised them prior to collection to make appt to see their own vet within 2 days and they agreed to this. Now they say that it was unrealistic to expect them to return the puppy within 2 days of collection. He didn't say to return within 2 days, he said to see vet within 2 days, and if anything was not to their satisfaction to return for a refund. They didn't contact him after the intial consultation. The second consultation was a week after the first, and only then did they contact son. The puppy health insurance is also now void, because when asked if the pup displayed any sign of illness they said it had coughed when they collected it.

The contract I referred to was the statutory contract that exist between a seller and buyer.  I doesn't have to be written down.  He offered them a refund and they refused so the law does not require him to do anything else as I understand it.

Thanks , do you know of a website that explains that law please?

did he not give 6 wks free insurance and if so would this not cover the puppy.?

> do you know of a website that explains that law please?

Direct.gov.uk
HTH!

Yes he gave 6 weeks insurance which is void because they said the pup was coughing when they bought it.

Sale of Goods Act
http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

*  Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

*  Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

*  It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

* If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

* For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).

* A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.

* If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit

* In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).

* If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

* After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.

Your son can request a second opinion on the pup's health but the onus is on your son to pay for this as he does not beleive the current vets opinion on the pups health. I very much doubt one vet would put head above the pulpit to state another vet was giving unnecessary medical treatments. But if your son decides to go down that route then your son could be put in a position of being sued by the vet in question as he would be accusing the vet of providing unnecessary medical treatment, the vet in question could also sue for damages as an accusation like that would damage his career.

The puppy purchaser could also take your son to small claims court and with vet medical evidence they could try to prove negligence against your son e.g.: lack of proper worming, lack of good animal husbandry.

Personally I think your son should hand over a full refund and get the purchaser to sign a document that they would not be pursuing any other cost from your son.

I seem to have a different take on this than the rest of the posters.  Whilst I don't think the purchasers have acted in the best way, if it was my puppy I would pay the bills up to date, with a written undertaking that no further veterinary expenses will be paid.  The care of the puppy and the reputation as a good and caring breeder should come first.  Looking at the worse case scenario, the purchaser could take small claims action against your son, and that really is a bit of a gamble as to the outcome, the case might be thrown out, or it might find in favour of your purchaser and could award not jsut the costs incurred but also a sum for upset etc.  The sale of goods acts which have been quoted refer mainly to traders, and don't cover private transactions, which I am assuming this is.  Of course, it could be construed to be a business transaction, as he sold a litter of pups, but if he takes the stance that he is a trader it  opens up all sorts of other problems, for instance, he should then be a licensed breeder with the local authority. 

This is a bit of a timely reminder to everyone breeding to have sensible, fair, written contracts in place at the time of sale of a pup.

thanks for replying, do you think he should give a full refund and let them keep the pup as they are asking, or a full refund of the vets bill.

He isn't trying to say the vet is giving unneccesary treatment as such , just seems like a lot of return visits to be given the same medication again,ie panacur wormer.  its the consultation fees that are hiking up the bill I think, as the actual medication is very inexpensive.

They refused to return the pup for a refund, so if this treatment goes on for months on end should my son still be liable to pay for it?

> thanks for replying, do you think he should give a full refund and let them keep the pup as they are asking, or a full refund of the vets bill.
>
> He isn't trying to say the vet is giving unneccesary treatment as such , just seems like a lot of return visits to be given the same medication again,ie panacur wormer.  its the consultation fees that are hiking up the bill I think, as the actual medication is very inexpensive.
>

Your son sold a sick pup and the others in the litter had the same condition and had to receive medical treatment. The pup's owners sound good caring owners just looking out for the health of the pup and following vets advice. In my opinion a full refund or whatever the highest costs are and let them keep the pup.

> They refused to return the pup for a refund, so if this treatment goes on for months on end should my son still be liable to pay for it?
>

He could be, it all depends how determined the owner is and how good a lawyer is. If this was to do with my son I would tell him to do the right thing and pay whatever the highest costs are and chalk it up to a learning experience.

I agree with Katt, as a good breeder you have to take responsibility, even for unkown factors. I am a little unsure as to why anyone would let a puppy go with a cough, even a little one, and if this did get to small claims court the fact that the whole litter eventually needed treatment would make it very clear that your son sold "faulty goods", the fact that the pup coughed before it went  thus invalidating the insurance would not make it seem he had undertaken the duty of care expected.  Some vets are simply more expensive than others.  If the puppy lives locally, and the new owners refuse to accept just the vets fees already incurred, your son could suggest further treatment at his own vets, hopefully thus minimising ongoing costs and ensuring the pup gets treatment which is effective and quick?

In my opinion, your son was "negligent" in not contacting the puppy owner as soon as his vet had commenced treatment for the rest of the litter for lungworm.  If he had contacted the new owners immediately, perhaps this could all have been avoided.

At the very least, he should pay for the costs of the treatment that the sold pup has had.

Probably not what you wanted to hear.

PS - I don't mean this to sound unpleasant - just concise :)

I'm other side of coin.. a buyer .
I can understand where pup buyer comming from in not wishing to take him back.
My lovely pup was with me a couple of days before could get her to vet and by that time we had fallen for her utterly. I was devestated when the vet told us she has extra rows of eye lashes inside both eyes and although I would not have bought her had I known I could not take her back.
vets an eye specialist and reckons she'll probably be ok with it, I hope so as I cannot imagine the insurance paying out as she was born like it and really the breeders vet should have picked up on it.
breeder was upset over it, offered to take back but shes my pup and I just couldn't.  will just cross fingers that it does remain ok as I can't imagine how much it would cost to try and correct.
thankfully I didn't buy her to show or breed as obviously she is now excluded from both.

I think if I ever get another pup I will try and get the pup vetted immidiately local to the breeders house before taking home, a good vet should have noticed this problem immediatly. , once they have been home a day or two it is too late.

I am a little unsure as to why anyone would let a puppy go with a cough, even a little one, and if this did get to small claims court the fact that the whole litter eventually needed treatment would make it very clear that your son sold "faulty goods", the fact that the pup coughed before it went  thus invalidating the insurance would not make it seem he had undertaken the duty of care expected.

I raised this point with him myself, But He had the vet check the pups 2 days before the sale, and the vet said there was no problem.

In my opinion, your son was "negligent" in not contacting the puppy owner as soon as his vet had commenced treatment for the rest of the litter for lungworm.  If he had contacted the new owners immediately, perhaps this could all have been avoided.

At the very least, he should pay for the costs of the treatment that the sold pup has had.

Probably not what you wanted to hear.

PS - I don't mean this to sound unpleasant - just concise 

------------------------

The puppy was seen by the owners vet 2 days after the sale, the vet gave antibiotics for a suspected respiratory infection. After a week, the pup was returned to the vet and then started with treatment for lungworm.

The rest of the litter started cough several days after the first pup was sold, as the owners had made no contact with my son, after seeing their vet the first time, son assumed all was well with that pup. He had told them at the point of sale to take to their vet and contact him if they were in any way dissatisfied for a full refund.
When they contacted son, it was a day or two after he had taken his pups to the vet . He knew they were taking the pup for 1st appointment 2 days after sale , so none of it could have been avoided really by him contacting them , as their pup was already being treated by their vet at this time.

No,  it doesn't sound unpleasant at all.  I asked for opinions and am grateful for everyones advice and views.

Sorry, don't know how to change text colour when posting to individual replies.

I'm other side of coin.. a buyer .
I can understand where pup buyer comming from in not wishing to take him back.
My lovely pup was with me a couple of days before could get her to vet and by that time we had fallen for her utterly. I was devestated when the vet told us she has extra rows of eye lashes inside both eyes and although I would not have bought her had I known I could not take her back.
vets an eye specialist and reckons she'll probably be ok with it, I hope so as I cannot imagine the insurance paying out as she was born like it and really the breeders vet should have picked up on it.
breeder was upset over it, offered to take back but shes my pup and I just couldn't.  will just cross fingers that it does remain ok as I can't imagine how much it would cost to try and correct.
thankfully I didn't buy her to show or breed as obviously she is now excluded from both.

I think if I ever get another pup I will try and get the pup vetted immidiately local to the breeders house before taking home, a good vet should have noticed this problem immediatly. , once they have been home a day or two it is too late.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Did you ask for a refund of the purchase price and keep the pup?
if the pup does need treatment for eyelashes will you expect the breeder to pay for it, as it was Faulty when when you bought it?

Cinders,
(How to do quotes: Click on reply on the posters you want to quote. The screen will then have a blank box for your post and below that in a blue box the person's post your replying to. Highlight the part of the text you want to quote then at the bottom left of the blue box is a teeny tiny grey coloured box and if you look real close you'll see "" quote marks in it. so highlight the text you want to quote then click on the teeny tiny quote box and hey presto the quote will appear in your white box where you are typing your reply.)

HTH! :)
                                                                                                                                                                                     

> How to do quotes: Click on reply on the posters you want to quote. The screen will then have a blank box for your post and below that in a blue box the person's post your replying to. Highlight the part of the text you want to quote then at the bottom left of the blue box is a teeny tiny grey coloured box and if you look real close you'll see "" quote marks in it. so highlight the text you want to quote then click on the teeny tiny quote box and hey presto the quote will appear in your white box where you are typing your reply.)
>
> HTH! :-)
>

Thank you ,  :-)

> He isn't trying to say the vet is giving unneccesary treatment as such , just seems like a lot of return visits to be given the same medication again,ie panacur wormer.  its the consultation fees that are hiking up the bill I think, as the actual medication is very inexpensive.
>

Actually the Vet IS giving unnecessary treatment etc.  I had a similar thing happen to one of my puppy buyers a yr after they'd had the puppy, their vet performed heart scans, lung drainage, x-rays, IV antibiotics - the full bill came to over £2k, this was about 7 yrs ago.  They contacted me in desperation as their vet had told them what a wonderful happy healthy puppy they'd brought when he first saw her a year earlier then proceded to procalm she was one of the worst bred dogs he'd seen in a long time!

Vets know Lungworm is a common problem with grass, slug, snail eating puppies, they know the symptoms and are well aware of the money that can be made from this simple problem due to the owners/breeders lack of knowledge.  Fortunately for my buyers I grew up on a farm so knew what had happend and asked if there was a 7 day course of panacur amongst all her meds - oh yes the vet said it would help her just incase she'd got worms too!  I proceded to send her information and a letter from my own vet who also went to court with them when they sued their own vet for unnecessary pain and suffering he'd caused to the dog and of course defrauding their insurance company of £2k.

If I were you're son I would want them to bring the pup back to my vet at the very least for a check up, a full written explanation from the vet re treatment, diagnosis explanation for future x-rays etc.  The owners were advised to take puppy to the vet, after your son's own vet had given the pup the all clear, I don't think it unreasonable to expect the new owners vet to have started treatment before the remaining pups were found to be infected so can't see what benefit there would have been to advising them of HIS vets diagnosis.  I do think in a court of law the buyers would be hard pushed to show him to be negligent as he followed his own vets advice and sold what he was assured was a fit and healthy puppy, the biggest problem here is maybe the quality of Vet both breeder and owners are using - rethink might be in order.

> I think if I ever get another pup I will try and get the pup vetted immidiately local to the breeders house before taking home, a good vet should have noticed this problem immediatly. , once they have been home a day or two it is too late

Actually it is surprising that most people don't even think to do this.  My mentor sold a puppy, as pet, to local people.  Have to be fair, she was sold as too small to breed or show, and the breeder was extremely clear with the buyers.  They did have her spayed, as I've met them since, so they were genuinely looking for a pet. 

However, I was surprised when I was told that they would arrange to meet the breeder and visit their own vet - not the same vet that the breeder uses, but local to him.  Once the buyers own vet had proclaimed the bitch healthy, they were happy.  I had never heard of anyone doing this, although the breeder made no objections, as it wasn't a million miles away, and he was happy to meet them with said puppy.  Not sure how you would deal with it if you had travelled far.  Especially as you wouldn't know the reputation of the vets in the area.  Food for thought though.