Puppy that requires expensive dental treatment

[hightail]

Licensing is only required for quite serious breeders who keep multiple breeding dogs, some perfectly good breeders don’t need a license and some dreadful ones are licensed so it’s something of a red herring.

 

What breed is the pup?  You don’t say and this ‘breeder’ doesn’t sound like a breeder at all from your post.  That said, they seem to have been quite responsible in that the pup was vet checked and vaccinated before you took it.

 

Has your insurance company confirmed this was a pre-existing condition they won’t cover?

[hightail]

I’d suggest you research this condition in some depth before formulating your claim.  From what I’ve found it isn’t at all uncommon for it to be diagnosed at second vaccination which indicates it may not be apparent beforehand.  That this pup had been vet checked at first vaccination does lend some weight to this.  There’s little to be gained by suggesting the breeder deliberately and knowingly sold you faulty goods if the evidence doesn’t back it up.  Better to keep things factual.  If you hadn’t noticed anything obviously wrong in ten days of ownership it probably isn’t reasonable to suggest the breeder had, especially as it wasn’t even apparent at first vet check.  

 

You mention being aware of the need for health checks in breeding animals.  Did you check for these (for both parents) with the breeder? It is more difficult with mixed breeds I know because there’s nowhere to check the veracity of certification without registration but if you at least discussed it with the breeder then you could show they were aware it should be in place.  I don’t think there is currently a test for this particular condition, however, if other health checks which should have been carried out weren’t it would show a general lack of care in the breeding.

 

You may well have a case, I guess it would depend on the judge on the day as to whether you could claim substantial inconvenience.  I honestly don’t know if it applies to emotional attachment after a few days, it may.  I’m honestly not sure where you stand refusing a refund and insisting on a repair because this is what you’re doing.  I understand why, it’s just quite difficult when you’re using a law which considers a puppy to be the same as a fridge.  It’s intended to be unemotional which is impossible I know.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hightail]

3 hours ago, BankFodder said:

I think that when people decide to buy designer animals, then they need to reflect on this.

I couldn't agree more.  With registered pedigree dogs there is at least some level of monitoring and standards - including the requirement for proper and very necessary health testing which btw does not mean a quick vet check.  It means genetic testing for known conditions within breeds.  At the other end of the scale there are the idiots who have 'accidental' litters but at least don't try to make massive profits out of them (most of the time).  In the middle there is this ever increasing pool of money grabbing breeders who mix breeds, label the progeny with a 'designer' tag and charge the earth for what are effectively mongrel puppies from untested parents.  Sadly they are servicing an increasing demand and there are increasing problems to go along with it.