supply of goods act 1973

[litt7ebu9]

Hi Can anyone tell me about this act and whether or not it would cover animals?

 

Thanks

[Sidewinder]

Is that the Sale of Goods Act?

 

I suppose that it depends on the type of animal, it's purpose and other criteria, but the Sale of Goods Act or Trades Descriptions Act would apply.

 

An animal sold for stud purposes for example, which was found to be sterile would not be fit for the pupose sold, and equally I suppose an animal sold as a pet which is found to be savage or otherwise clearly unsuitable for that purpose will be covered by the Act.

 

Quite how one would define reasonable periods in which it could be established that the 'goods' were faulty I don't know though.

[litt7ebu9]

I have no idea?

 

it is for a dog that was bought as a pet, that has developed hip problems

[rosiecotton]

It's the Sale of Goods Act 1979 which states that goods purchased must be of satisfactory quality, as described and fit for purpose.

 

Animals sold would class as "goods" under this Act, strange though it may seem to think of them in that way!

[poppynurse]

Is it a breed that is known to have hip problems? Were the parents hip scored? Could do with more info!

[MrShed]

When did you buy the dog? How much for? From a company or an individual?

 

I must say however, I think it is a bit much to try and claim this for a pet. IMO, you would never win in court, it is simply a fact that animals can develop illnesses and injuries, it is part and parcel of being a pet owner.

[rosiecotton]

Yes, we would need more information before advising on whether you do indeed have a case.

[litt7ebu9]

Im the breeder, not the owner.

I have all my bitches scored and they have low scores, as do the stud dogs.

 

thanks for your help in advance

[MrShed]

Ah...in that case I apologise for my comment above :)

 

Is someone trying to enforce SOGA on you then? What kind of timescale are we talking bout between sale and existence of problem?

[demon_x_slash]

:-| It's a bit of a stretch to try and blame the breeder for a health problem if there's no history of problems with the line, IMHO. If all your breeding dogs have low, well-balanced scores for their breeds, then I don't think they'd have a recourse, as sometimes it's just bad luck. Also, HD can be influenced (improved/worsened) by diet and exercise, so I really don't see how they can argue that it was your fault. As long as you've done everything reasonably expected of you to ensure a healthy puppy, ie had the dogs scored, investigated their genetic backgrounds, fed the pups well etc, I honestly can't see their argument.

[litt7ebu9]

Ah...in that case I apologise for my comment above :)

 

Is someone trying to enforce SOGA on you then? What kind of timescale are we talking bout between sale and existence of problem?

 

 

2 years

[MrShed]

Oh for goodness sake....tell them to take a hike!!

[MrFancypants]

I agree 2 years rubbish & anyway they should have taken out pet insurance bearing in mind current vet fees

 

Out of interest what is the breed?

[litt7ebu9]

they do have pet insurance!!!!!!

GSD

[JonCris]

they do have pet insurance!!!!!!

GSD

 

If they have pet insurance what's the problem? Why are they bothering you. Is it at because the IC is refusing to cover fees

[litt7ebu9]

Their pet insurance covers everything, all treatment costs.

 

They obviously lead very boring lives.

[bazak1]

someone somewhere has lost the plot.

the people concerned originally buy a presumably perfectly healthy puppy off you, keep it two years then try to get recourse off you because of HD. you seem to be a person who has enough knowledge of breeding, and therefore obviously would have done everything within your power to bring these pups into the world correctly, and have endeavoured to rear them up to the point of sale in exactly the same way.

i've got to agree with the other posts, tell them to take a hike, and/or sort their pet insurance out, as i would have thought it was them and not you they need to contact.

i mean, imagine the consequencies if this actually got as far as court and won.....you would have fishtank lovers buying goldfish and claiming for damages if they have swimbladder disease, and tortoise lovers claiming they have been ripped off when they find out they can only play with it for six months of the year because it's in hibernation the other six. i wouldnt worry too much about it. any living creature can become ill at ANY time.

[litt7ebu9]

that just really made me laugh! thanks

[demon_x_slash]

As I said, your argument is that you've done everything in your power to prevent HD appearing - medical checks on your breeding dogs showed that they had a minimal chance of passing on a hereditary disease (the scoring), the line itself shows no history of HD, and you looked after the pups to a high standard before they were bought.

[chesham]

2 years would be beyond the 'prescribed' time for faults to develop in any 'product' - of which, dogs are classed as 'goods' in the eyes of the law, which is why killing a dog is criminal damage...

[MrFancypants]

2 years! a prescribed time? What does that mean?

[rosiecotton]

2 years would be beyond the 'prescribed' time for faults to develop in any 'product' - of which, dogs are classed as 'goods' in the eyes of the law, which is why killing a dog is criminal damage...

 

Actually the statute of limitation is 6 years, therefore a consumer would have up to six years to claim if there is a fault that can be argued to have been inherent in the product at the time of purchase (i.e. not normal wear and tear but a manufacturing fault) under the Sale of Goods Act.

 

Dogs are classed as goods indeed, because they are purchased, in the same way that cats, goldfish, hamsters are also classed as goods when purchased from a trader. The criminal damage element is a separate issue.

 

Edit: however I agree that the OP probably has nothing to worry about and the claim against them seems to be rather frivolous.

[Movingon]

Listen to the Rosie Lady - she KNOWS things.

[Movingon]

More seriously, rather than telling them to take a hike, write to them formally dismissing their claim as having no validity. Don't state things like "I did this, I did that" - those moments have passed. Simply write to them something like the following:

 

Dear Sir

 

I note with dismay your comments about your purchase on of a from , and the fact that this animal has contracted a hereditary disease. Having investigated I can confirm that I have taken all reasonable precautions to identify at risk animals, and your animal was no more or less at risk than any other sold at that time.

 

I can further confirm therefore that I am not in any way liable for your costs or damages in relation to this animal. I would strongly advise you to pursue this matter through your insurers - however I am more than happy for you to pursue it through the Courts if you wish. Please note that any such Action will be vigourously defended and contested.

[JonCris]

Never! never! suggest that a claimant should issue legal proceedings if they don't like it. That could be a red rag to bull for some people with more money than sense & a desire to cause grief.....You could just find yourself having to do just that.