Someone calls you enquiring about a pup you have for sale, you tell them the pup is 6 months old, one you were running on but it isnt going to make a show dog, needs to 'work', but omit to to tell the person calling that the pup was actually rehomed back to you due to a family allergy.

What are your thoughts?

Why lie?

Seems to me the truth is not so bad.

Shows lack of integrity, and definately not forgetful, a lie plain and simple.

Dawn R.

Like Nursey i don't see the reason to lie.

Agree - allergies happen - just feel a certain amount of mistrust now that to be honest was completely unecessary.

Someone told me a lie about a car they were selling. Nothing to do with the car really (said they were selling it for ex wife when they'd really bought it to resell). I didn't buy it - couldn't trust them because they'd lied once, what was to stop them lying again? Some people like to complicate matters. Why not tell the truth?

>they'd lied once, what was to stop them lying again?

Absolutely. Never trust a proven liar.

I can't see that its a lie unless the person enquiring asked if the pup had been returned or rehomed and then you didn't say...

I have to agree with Chloe, if you have avoided a direct question thats a lie.

JMHO

Just to clarify things; I was the person enquiring. I was told the dog was kept for running on but was clearly needing more than a 'show life', ideally a working home. At no stage was I told this 6 month pup had been rehomed because of an allergy problem. Why would I ask that question? I wasnt even enquiring about that pup originally, it was another one that I was interested in. The breeder said that one was gone but that she had this one.

Anyway - probably enough said - I wont be going to see the pup, the right decision for me but does make me sad.

Of course the breeder may have ahd the dog back originally a while agao and had then decided to run him on, and found now that he wasn't as promising as at first thought, or just wasn't fitting in as well as hoped with the other dogs (often a problem with returnees).

But unless you asked the question directly, I don't think it can be considered a lie... perhaps they just thought it wasn't particularly relevant? After all, the pup might have only been gone for a week or so.

Well I still think it is a lie. The reason given for the puppy being available was that it had been run on, but that was not the truth, so it must then be a lie. The puppy was available because it had been returned to the breeder, and I see no shame in that, so why lie.

Dawn R. :)

Perhaps it was a bit of both? :) Pup might have gone for a week at 8 weeks, come straight back and then been run on? I know of breeders who have had pups returned and then chosen to keep them after. I think that accusing someone of lying is pretty strong in this case - JMO :D

If the pup was returned to the breeder purely because of a family allergy, its hardly the pups fault or wrong doing; there is nothing wrongwith the dog, so I fail to see how this could be considered lying.