she said she didn't get full price for him but didn't disclose the amount.
Okay so I emailed her asking for a partial refund and this is what she emailed back verbatim
"Hi Jenny, I'll look into it, we didn't get full price for him, I've fed, wormed, vaccinated, changed ownership, changed microchip details, redone puppy and info packs, it's all cost me. I understand your situation but the contract explains all. Leave it with me, Regards, Helen"
After a week I didn't hear from her so contacted the CAB and read the term in the contract she was referring to which reads verbatim
"If ever, for any reason the purchaser is unable to keep the dog, whatever the age, it must be returned to the breeder, along with all paperwork which will include: KC registration certificate, vaccination card, hip and eye tests (if done). It is at the breeders discretion as to whether any monies are refunded"
When I read this clause to the CAB they advised me to write to her claiming there was an unfaIr term in the contract which is why we think we may have a case to get the refund. I got a reply from her basically not referring to the unfair term but saying "although live animals are classified as "goods" under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 it needs to be appreciated that what you returned to us was in fact a ten week old puppy, a "living thing" not something that can just be disregarded as an inanimate object"
I can send you the full correspondence but basically she mentions I didn't disclose an issue I have with anxiety - she asked me no questions when I visited so this seems like an irrelevance and she still hasn't referred to the matter of an unfair term. Isn't this the key issue, that she made it impossible for me to do nothing else than return the puppy to her. She got £800 from me and the money from the sell on of the puppy to new owners within two weeks of me returning him.. The vaccine costs, worming etc wouldn't have exceeded £150
thanks for your help in this matter
Hi can you advise on the next course of action, small claims court or another letter to her before small claims. Would you be able to draft us something to send to her if you recommend the latter?
Cannot restraint of trade in this case be added for ggroundgrounds to abort contract under mercantile law?
is not restraint of rrclauclauses relevant to my claim under law of
No. Restrictions of this kind are fairly common and debatable but all that would mean is that the restriction is void not the contract.
The justification is usually that it is in the interests of responsible breeding, whatever that means when dogs are dying in rescues, but often the real reason is to restrict competition.
are you able to disname close you full name and uther particulars in the event I need to contact you again. Thank you