Hi could any one shed some light on this, a friend of mine has a 16 week old deaf bullterrier and the breeder has refused to refund there money and take the puppy back because it has taken the owners 10 weeks to work out it is deaf,is this right what is the law and is there a time limit on how long you have to return a puppy,it taken the owner so long because they have other dogs and the puppy just seam to follow, you what's it's like you shout one and they all come,and no the sire and dam was not BEAR tested    

The breeder let the puppy go at 6 weeks old?

yes with no contract or vacc's

Wouldn't expect pup to be vaccinted, but certainly with a contract and with BAER hearing test certificate and all paperwork at around 8 weeks of age.

If there's no contract to state the breeder's policy on returning puppies (most will give a full refund on a return up to a week or 2 week after sale, if being returned on medical grounds) then there's probably little that can be done. Did your friend's vet not suggest testing when they took it for its first check? 6 weeks would have been too young to be vaccinated.

This is a breed where deafness is not uncommon and ethical breeder ought to be BAER hearing testing their pups so that no pup is sold with it's hearing status unknown.

I would advise your friends to contact Trading Standards, as they have been sold faulty goods.

I would also contact the breed club and if they are members report this bad conduct to them.

This is a breed where deafness is not uncommon and ethical breeder ought to be BAER hearing testing their pups so that no pup is sold with it's hearing status unknown.

Certainly but I would also expect the purchaser to have done some research and not to buy an untested puppy from untested parents, so they must share the responsibilty. :(  If they didn't ask then the breeder wasn't deceitful. :(

Quite right, but the breeder deserves to be taken to task and I am sure a good case could be made by trading standards that the buyers would expect a puppy to be hearing.

my friends did do some research and the breeder was sure that all the litter was fine in hearing, are they born deaf or do the lose there hearing at some point ?

If they're deaf, they're deaf from birth. It can only be detected with any certainty by BAER, and all reputable BT breeders (along with other breeds prone to this hereditary condition) will test the whole litter at about 5 or 6 weeks of age (it can't be done sooner).

As your friend has discovered it can be almost impossible to detect deafness simply by observation when the puppy's in a group because it will copy the responses of the others (it's taken her 10 weeks and the breeder didn't have it that long!) and will also be able to feel vibrations.

You freind has a right to return the puppy and expect a full refund. The puppy and any puppy is covered by The Sale of Goods Act.

HOWEVER this is where the problem comes in, if you ask the breeder to take the puppy back and offer and full refund and she says no then you would have to raise a small claims action against the breeder. A lot of people dont and cant be bothered.  You can have a solicitor send a litter outlining intention of litigation of the puppy is not taken back and refunded as a scare tactic it may or may not work.

BUT the puppy is techincally covered in Law. It is just inforcing it..

The problem with the Sale of Goods Act (as I understand it) is that to be returned for a full refund the 'article' has to be not fit for the purpose for which it was bought. As there are whole websites which insist that deaf dogs make good pets, and the pup was bought as a pet, I'd imagine the breeder could get away with it.

>there are whole websites which insist that deaf dogs make good pets

Like this one.

Sorry JG the sale of goods act is a lot more comprehensive that this.

Deafness is a " disability"   Disability would legally fall into health issues, if this breed has tests for this then the puppy should have been tested. If the tests are avaliable then there is a presumption that it is a possibility and tests to avoid them being sold.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

Found this link, which also has an email addy at the end for help and advice :)

At best the buyer would only be entitled to a partial refund because of the clause
"a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good,"
They've enjoyed the puppy's company for 10 weeks so have definitely had "some benefit".

If they were an ethical breeder they would either offer to take the pup back with most of the price of the pup back to the owner or their money back.  Unfortunately with it going at 6 weeks doesn't exactly sound like the best breeder ot have bought from.  I presume that the dog isn't KC registered?  If they are did they get the free 6 weeks insurance and did they continue it?  Also is the breeder a KC accredited breeder?  If they are I would get in touch with the KC.  Again there isn't a lot that will happen but the KC may get in touch with the breeder.

Unfortunately not many of the GP realise that so many health tests should be done on dogs, they just see cute fluffy pups and take it from there.

yes the dog is KC and they paid top end price which is the best part of two weeks wage, at first they did not want to give the dog back as the children were very upset, but after thinking about it, they thought it was best all round,they even ask the breeder to swap for the puppy they kept back and do you know what the breeder said " what do i do with a deaf dog " 

I don't think they'll ever get a refund - and who would want to return a puppy anyway after having it 10 weeks :(  I would just consider it a lesson learned, and perhaps we can point other prospective buyers towards this post in the future.

This family may not have the ability to deal with a deaf puppy.  It can be very difficult indeed to train one, and with children in the home so much can go wrong, a door left open, kids or kids friends startling the pup/dog and a biting incident occurring.

To be honest I would not consider a Deaf pup as a Pet for any but the rarest person, certainly not the average family.

To be honest the family expected and are entitled to a healthy pup, and a deaf one isn't.  As this is something that could have been checked for by the breeder I rather think any court would rule in favour of the buyers.

I agree, I'd never sell a deaf puppy, but I've actually had people asking for one!

Well 10 weeks out of an expected lifespan of 520 or more weeks shouldn't reduce their refund by much.

My point is that I'd expect a good lawyer to be able to make a case that if the new owner took 10 weeks to notice the problem then it's understandable that the breeder hadn't noticed it in 4 weeks (after all, pups' ears don't open for about 2 weeks).

Yes but it can be argued that this is a well known problem in the breed and should have been checked for.

My worries are that not only is this pup deaf, but with such an uncaring breeder what else has the breeder failed to select for , such as temperament, socialisation is lacking, makes this poor pups future fraught with difficulties. 

If the new owners are so inexperienced as to buy a pup like this what are the chances they will be able to deal with the problem for the next 10 years or more.

Let me make it very clear that I'm playing Devil's Advocate here! I think the breeder is 100% in the wrong for not testing (I think I'm right in saying that it's a BT Club reuqirement that litters are tested) and any breeder worthy of the name would never knowingly sell a deaf puppy and wouldn't hesitate to take one back if it slipped through the net.

However BAER testing still isn't a requirement for KC accreditation in any breed, so there's no way it can be claimed that the lack of testing is a failure on the part of the breeder.

Yes I did realise JG, I know you are very pro BAER testing and the responsibilites on a breeder re this condition :D

The BT clubs guidelines would always have more weight that the KC.  The Club is made up of experienced members of that breed there to look after the breed. The KC is an registry organisation basically.

However BAER testing still isn't a requirement for KC accreditation in any breed, so there's no way it can be claimed that the lack of testing is a failure on the part of the breeder.

Sorry but it can , the guidelines from the club say the breeder should be testing.  Every breeder who breeds a litter " should" have done their homework before breeding the litter.  It is not the purchasers fault that the breeder potentially cut cornersi if the illness is known in the breed. Worse nowadays as everything is free to hand on the internet. There is no excuse for ignorance.

Trying the think of another example.  I was involved ina H&S civil case years ago. Someone who worked in a production room where they had to wear safety glasses.  The person continually didn't wear them. On record there was 2 verbal warnings and 1 written warning.  The person was injured , an injury that the people could have avoided if they had worn the glasses.  What would you expect the outcome to be??    Well the company was liable ( partly)  because they knew the person was repeatedly not wearing the glasses.  They continued to let the person work in the situations knowing they were probably breaking the rules.  Liability of the employee was considered and the amount awarded was lower because of it but the employee did get a settlement.   Is it fair probably not but it's life.  Duty of care is a vry scary thing when you get into that also.

From the bull terrier club's Code of Conduct clearly states that deaf puppies should not be sold. OP, would it be possible for your friend to contact the breed club and ask whether or not the breeder is a club member? If so she'd have a stronger case.

My point is that I'd expect a good lawyer to be able to make a case that if the new owner took 10 weeks to notice the problem then it's understandable that the breeder hadn't noticed it in 4 weeks (after all, pups' ears don't open for about 2 weeks).

It doesn't matter if the breeder wasn't aware of it.  You are not allowed to sell faulty goods. That is why so many people get things wrong. The other thing is a breeder is or would be classed as a skilled experienced person a puppy buyer would not have the same skill and experience.  

The example you have used ( sorry to pick on your post)  is almost like saying  Currys don't have to take a washing machine back because they didn't know it was faulty. Every machine is tested before it leaves the factory.

Anything that is or can be classed as hereditary would be covered in the first few months.

In fact in cival law cases the fact the breeder is or would refuse to take it back would actually go against them, a good breeder would be doing all the can to present themselves to a court that they are ethical breeders doing all they can in the interest of the breed. Hence the reason for breeding.  Whilst it isn't against the law to sell puppies for money , in that short time in court you have a small amount of time to present and defend your actions yourself.

>You are not allowed to sell faulty goods.

Some people don't think of it as a fault, and actively seek it out. I personally think they're 100% wrong, but the fact that it happens makes the breeder's case stronger.

>It doesn't matter if the breeder wasn't aware of it.

What you're saying is that if a pup goes on the develop HD or PRA then the breeder is at fault, even though they were unaware that the pup had the condition.

What you're saying is that if a pup goes on the develop HD or PRA then the breeder is at fault, even though they were unaware that the pup had the condition. Depends on each case but it isn't unheard of.

If there are tests that can be carried out that satisfy that pup is healthy and these tests have not been carried out then yes the breeder would/can be at fault.   IE if someone sold a puppy from parents that were not Hip Scored and the puppy developed HD yes the breeder would be liable. Again you have to present your case properly and factual with supporting information to show there are tests that are avaliable. If the parents had been tested and the puppy had the same hip problems that would be a different outcome or view much differently because the breeder had done hopefully everything in their power to prevent it.  The " size" of liability is measured taking everything into account.  Bare in mind all Civil cases are about money. 

It is too complicated and lengthly to into the ins and outs of it and each case has to be assessed individually. I wished sometimes I would avoid some threads that end up going down the legal route as it isn't cut and dry and takes a whole lot longer than a few mins and a few lines so show comparisons that make sense . ;-)    Someone always comes along to contradict you and has an exact case where it turned out differently :rolleyes::rolleyes: but I am honestly confident in what I am saying.  :-)

When I was a student years ago I worked part time as a Customer Services Manager for Sainsbury and at times Homebase. (They were both owned by Sainsbury at the time)   I was in my 2nd year doing law.   The things that the company used to do and get away with at times were appalling. I used to cringe.  They were actually better than most companies I have to say but  on many many occasion , I mean like at least 50 times they carried out or handled transactions and complaints that were completely wrong. Small claims would have had a great time.   So I hear most people say, " why did they get away with it though? "

Plain and simple. If you have 50 faulty law mowers within their 1st 6 months of life and when people return them or complain they try to convince people they have to send the machines away themselves etc. "Why would they do that if they know it is wrong and breach of thew Sale of Goods Act?"     If only 5 of these people stand to their guns and demand a refund , it is only 5 refunds you have done. All 50 would have been entitled to their money back but the 45 didn't know their rights or couldn't be bothered doing anything.  Ignorance and/or lazyness.. whilst it isn't fair The Sale Of Goods Act is there to protect those that either can take the time to understand it or seek someone who can understand it for them. 

That is the problem overall with people.

JG you will always hear people say blah blah blah about the outcome of a case. I read it over and over on hear. More times that not half the facts and circumstances are different from one they are comparing it to so have no weight whatsoever..

Week in week out on here being honest I see so much wrong advise given out.  the Law generally stands with the consumer.  I am a breeder and still think the law should stand with the consumer.  

Any puppy I have sold I can whole heartedly say I have told the person that the puppy they have just bought falls within the realms of The Sale Of Goods Act and if there was any problem at all I would give them their money back right away.

Sorry for the bolding I cut the HTML wrongly and was too late to alter it :-)

Jez is there a few crackers of spelling mistakes in that post.  Way past my bed time.  My typing is terrible at times.

What you're saying is that if a pup goes on the develop HD or PRA then the breeder is at fault, even though they were unaware that the pup had the condition.

Don't you remember that case a few years ago JG? A puppy buyer had an 8 week old Labrador pup they walked for 3 miles a day. It ended up with HD despite both parents having good, low scores -most likely as a cause of serious over exercising. The buyers took the breeder to court and WON, because the court ruled the puppy wasn't fit for the purpose it had been bought for. It was in both the dog papers.

At best the buyer would only be entitled to a partial refund because of the clause


Sorry JG that is incorrect.  They are intitled to resind the contract and return the puppy for a full refund. The entitlement and enforcing it as I have said earlier is the difficult thing :-)   A fault that isn't noticed at a particular time is excused in particular circumstances , this would definately cover deafness in a puppy due to difficultly in a " inexperienced" person knowing what to look for. 

Sure there was a case that the puppy buyer got the cost of puppy and to keep puppy
when they went to court re health problem and puppy not being fit for purpose

I think your friend has to decide what she is going to do about the puppy - the breeder has obviously washed her hands of it - and so the main question is :  what does your friend intend to do now?     She is the owner of a deaf puppy - is she going to reject it - in which case, she should be contacting the breed rescue - let them know of breeder - if the breeder is a member (which I very much doubt, from what you have told us) then the breed society might be able to put some pressure on the breeder.   Failing that, she should contact Blue Cross or another rescue which will do its utmost to see that the puppy is placed where it can receive the care and training essential for it to become a well-beloved member of a family.

If however, it is just the financial side of the deal they are having problems with - (and I do appreciate that "just" sounds as if the money doesn't matter when it does!) then I would try the Small Claims Court.

Margot

thanks you lot have been a great help, i will past the info on , and lets hope this can be sorted out with out court's

thanks you lot have been a great help, i will past the info on , and lets hope this can be sorted out with out court's

Great, I would always advise anyone to avoid the legal route if they can BUT it is there if they need it. :-)

However, the legalities of this turn out, all I wish to say is shame on the breeder what a terrible attitude.

To be honest after their response, I hope that your friend will take the advice and go through rescue etc to re-home this pup to those who have experience, and personally I would then go through the route of reclaiming my money by legal means, re-homing the pup will also show that your friend felt unexperienced enough to continue homing and caring for the pup ;-) and will  help things to fall in her favour. I would do it quickly, before the breeder realises she/he may need to give some or all moneytary return. Just please make sure that the pup is not returned to this breeder, I have a terrible feeling from the responses that this breeder would have euthanaised the pup on return by a vet or their own hands.

To be honest the pups should have been PTS after failing a BAER test.   The heartache sghould have been borne by the breeder not the new owners.  I suspect emotional blackmail will come into play.

That's standard procedure, and the course of action recommended by the vets who conduct the tests. Breed rescue will probably do just that.

This is where the poor owners may feel they want to struggle on as they have become attached to teh puppy :(  they should not have been put in this situation.