Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: sm subjec ton Judge Judy

  1. #1

    Default sm subjec ton Judge Judy

    While channel surfing I chanced upon a Judge Judy where the subject of the case was a Cavalier, a sweet little black and tan who behaved calmly in the court room. The owner claimed that the dog had strange behaviour, suggested to be SM by to her vet, and the breeders were refusing to refund the purchase price or let the purchaser have a replacement puppy despite their sale contract providing for either in the case of any congenital abnormality. There were films of the dog behaving oddly, but she had no official diagnosis, it was just a suspicion. In the end Judge Judy ruled that the breeder had to refund the purchase price. As far as I could gather there was no proof that the condition was congenital and the breeders claimed she hadn’t demonstrated odd behaviour since having been returned to them and had taken her off the( not specified) medication prescribed by the owners' vet. I can't help but think I'd have wanted an MRI to get a better diagnosis. Judge Judy's take seemed to be that if she had a dog that behaved like that she'd be worried and that the films clearly showed the dog was not "normal"

    Last edited by Janelise; 05-28-2017 at 07:10 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Wiltshire. U.K


    Who do you think should bear the cost of the MRI in this instance Jane to obtain a positive diagnosis before a refund? The owner or the breeder. Quite possibly the cost of the MRI would be higher than the purchase price.


  3. #3


    A good question; I think there was a price quoted for the puppy, 1,500$. Moral answer or legal answer?? Morally the breeder, because this puppy's contrct did appear to have a clause that if there was anything congenitally wrong the breeder would take her back! Legally I'm looking from the point of view of French law which depends to some extent on what is on the contract of sale, )and all puppies sold in France must by law have a veterinary certificate of good health However,several conditions "vices rédhibitoires" are the responsibilty of the breeder but it is up to the buyer to prove them. Three of them would be the liability of the manufacturers of the vaccins, it being a "given" that a puppy is vaccinated before sale. SM and heart problems are not included in the list, and I can't help but think it would be really hard to prove that either was congenital as dogs tend to show symptoms later in life. All of these problems should be signalled to the breeder within 30 days, almost imppossible for hips as hardly anyone hip scores a puppy! and difficult with testicles as the time limit is six months.

    Le Code Rural définit les 6 maladies suivantes comme étant des vices rédhibitoires chez le chien :

    La maladie de Carré (distemper)
    L'hépatite contagieuse ou hépatite de Rubarth( hepatitis)
    La parvovirose canine (parvovirus)
    La dysplasie coxo-fémorale (dysplasie de la hanche) (hip dysplasia)
    L'ectopie testiculaire pour les animaux de plus de 6 mois (monorchid, cryptorchid)
    L'atrophie rétinien.

    ther is also a list of vices rédhibitoires for horses and cats.

    For example, the fact that a dog does not have a testicle descendedmay not harm his well-being and he will be able to live quite normally. On the other hand, it can not be "confirmed" i.e. et its full pedigree reistration, even if it comes from pedigree parents, so cannot be described as LOF (it can't be listed in the French Book of Origin).

    The seller can, in agreement with the buyer, indicate this in the contract. Where it is specified in the contract of sale that an animal is intended for a companion the purchaser has no legal right o complain against the seller in case of handicap such as the impossibility of reproducing from the dog or cat or being prevented from being able to exhibit the animal.

    The French monthly magazine "vos Cheins" (your dogs) usually has a legal article in every issue, written by an avocat (barrister) and it is quite astonishing to read the things that purachsers have tried to sue breeders for. There is the legal presumption of selling something "fit for purpose". So if a dog, for example, has fits and has been sold as companion, it is not really fit for the purpose for which it was bought.

    I gather that what usually happens in the case of a monorchid dog is that the seller refunds half the purchase price to make it a "pet" price.

    breeding dogs or other animals is a minefield!


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts