There is a case starting now about a lady who sold a "teacup" maltese and it ended up having health problems and the lady took it back and sold it to someone else and won't refund the money. Looks like it will be interesting.
Well, after the judge laid into the breeder about there being no such thing as a teacup maltese the end result was that she had to give the plaintiff her money back. Part of the problem was that the contract was in conflict with New York law. The breeder "broke" the contract by selling the dog to someone else. Also, since it was a congenial defect the breeder had the responsibility to either pay the vet bills or replace the dog. Since she had already gotten rid of the dog she couldn't return the dog and pay the vet bills and since the problem was congenial the lady obviously didn't want another dog from her she was ordered to pay back the $1200.00. The plaintiff would have had an easier time but she didn't return the dog within the 14 days that New York allows. It was more like six weeks, so if the breeder hadn't resold the dog she would have had to pay the vet bills and return the dog. That lady was a nut. Her and the judge were yelling at each other. Interesting side note, she had been sued in The People's Court before for selling "teacups" which the judge made clear that there is no such thing. I've never seen Judge Milan go off on somebody quite that bad. It was interesting. Did anyone else see it?
I've seen it too, but it wasn't clear that it was congential (sp?). The vets description from the plaintiff and the new owner only stated more tests needed to be done. The dog had liver problems. In my mind the judge was right awarding the plaintiff. Nicky the dachshund http://www.dogster.com/?86824 Benji the golden retriever http://www.dogster.com/?86827