How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Jo C. Your Own Question
Jo C.
Jo C., Barrister
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 70526
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice
12826847
Type Your Law Question Here...
Jo C. is online now
Law

Sale of Goods Act. Puppy purchased and returned to breeder.Claim

for return of purchase price... Show More
for return of purchase price and veterinary costs. Restrictive clauses , quote ' the dog will in no way be sold,
rehomed, given away or donated to any other person.If for any reason the purchaser is unable to keep the dog, whatever the age, it must be returned to the breeder........'
it is to the breeders discretion as to whether any moneys are refunded.'
On collecting the puppy it was found to be underweight , apparently under nourished and suffering a gastric disorder,necessitating an immediate visit to our local vet for examination and medication (anti biotics ) and a further visit the next day to ascertain
that with a change of diet the puppy would regain weight and health.
For the record the breeder resold the puppy no doubt for a similar price and has retained
the proceeds.
Questioin - can the contract in the light of restraint clauses be basic grounds for
avoidance and return of monies exended?
Submitted: 3 years ago.
Category: Law
Show Less
Ask Your Own Law Question
replied 3 years ago.
Hi.
Thank you for your question. My name is ***** ***** I will try to help with this.
Has the breeder confirmed that they sold for a similar price?
Customer reply replied 3 years ago.

no.

Customer reply replied 3 years ago.

she said she didn't get full price for him but didn't disclose the amount.

Jo C., Barrister replied 3 years ago.
What has she said on the point please?
It will make all the difference?
Customer reply replied 3 years ago.

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

best, Jenny

Jo C., Barrister replied 3 years ago.
Thanks.
The contractual points here are irrelevant. Whatever the dispute is matters not. On your primary point though, the SGA does apply to the sale of lifestock but its quite difficult to bring them within it. No puppy is perfect. They are all likely to have some form of health issue at some point. The need for anti biotics alone will not allow you to void the entire contract. The very highest point there is that you may have had a claim for the cost of the vet's fees.
Come what may, you returned the puppy and she has sold him. She cannot benefit twice from the same sale. In fairness, she is only under an obligation to return to you any additional profit she has made. If she was put to cost then she does have a claim against you for that. If she had to change the microchipping information then she does have a claim against you for that. Similarly vaccinnation would have to be done to stop the first vaccination becoming invalid and there is a claim there.
However, she would still be in profit of some form and that should be returned to you. She is entitled to be compensated for her loss but not to profit from it.
Can I clarify anything for you?
Jo
Customer reply replied 3 years ago.

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?

Kind regards

Jo C., Barrister replied 3 years ago.
It is probably a good idea to send a letter before action. I am not allowed to draft under the rules of this site but I can check any letter that you compose. It should be simple enough though.
The real issue here is that we don't know what the claim sum is. One way forward is to claim the full amount you paid and let her defend it on the basis that she was put to cost.
Customer reply replied 3 years ago.

Cannot restraint of trade in this case be added for ggroundgrounds to abort contract under mercantile law?

Customer reply replied 3 years ago.

is not restraint of rrclauclauses relevant to my claim under law of

contracts?

Jo C., Barrister replied 3 years ago.

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.

Customer reply replied 3 years ago.

are you able to disname close you full name and uther particulars in the event I need to contact you again. Thank you

Jo C., Barrister replied 3 years ago.
I am sorry but I am not allowed to do that under the rules of this site
You can always post back here if you need anything.