A B.C. couple didn’t get the result they were looking for – a whopping $3,500 – after starting court action over what they claimed was a “severe allergy” in the dog they had just purchased.
The couple bought Kolya, an American hairless terrier, for $3,500 but then claimed the dog developed a health issue and wanted a refund. So they went to the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal.
“The applicants say that before purchasing Kolya, they told the respondent they needed a dog without any allergies, and the respondent assured them that Kolya had none,” reads the CRT ruling. “The applicants say Kolya developed a severe allergy on his paws four days after purchase. The applicants say they returned Kolya to the respondent, but the respondent refused to provide a refund.”
The seller told the CRT that Kolya does not have any allergies and is healthy.
According to the CRT ruling, there was no written contract between the two parties and so no agreement detailing a potential refund.
“Even though pets occupy a unique place in people’s lives, the law generally treats them as personal property,” reads the ruling. “So, while people often use the term ‘adoption,’ pet sales are subject to the law governing the sale of goods … The starting point in a dispute about the sale of goods is that the law generally treats sales as final. In a private sale of used goods, a purchaser is expected to reasonably assess the used goods’ condition before purchase. This is because a seller is not obligated to tell a buyer about patent or obvious defects. The applicable principle is referred to as the doctrine of caveat emptor or ‘buyer beware.’”
One issue that was at the centre of the dispute was if the seller “misrepresented” the dog’s condition before the sale.
“Although the applicants do not use these words, I find the applicants allege that the respondent misrepresented Kolya’s condition before purchase,” reads the ruling. “The applicants also say that since they paid $3,500 for Kolya, the respondent must guarantee the applicants are getting a healthy dog. The respondent does not dispute telling the applicants that Kolya was healthy and had no allergies at the time of purchase. So, the first question is whether this representation was false.”
The buyers said that when they picked up Kolya, the dog had a rash on its leg but were told this was just cuts from playing outside and would heal in no time.
“The applicants say that after four days, Kolya developed a severe allergy on his paws,” reads the ruling. “They say Kolya’s paws were red with broken skin, and Kolya was constantly biting his paws. They also say Kolya refused to eat breakfast.”
But the CRT adjudicator said that the photo and video evidence “does not obviously show that Kolya was unhealthy or had an ongoing allergic reaction or allergy.”
The CRT ruling said what was needed was “expert evidence,” but that the buyers didn’t provide that from a veterinarian.
The seller, however, did provide evidence from two separate veterinarian hospitals that refuted the buyers’ claims.
“I find this evidence shows Koyla was healthy and allergy-free at the time of purchase, and continued to be healthy and allergy-free after being returned to the respondent,” reads the ruling.
In the end, the $3,500 claim was dismissed.
READ MORE: B.C. neighbours ‘unreasonably sensitive’ to bass, couple says in lawsuit
