People have an incredible bond with their companion animals and, when disputes arise, many are often surprised to learn that the law affords these creatures and their custodians a limited array of rights and remedies.
By way of example, in Appell v. Rodriguez , Kathleen and Christopher Appell purchased a Great Dane puppy from Olena Rodriguez.
Apparently, the parties' contract of sale required the Appells to report any health problems to Rodriguez within three business days of purchase. But it was not until some two weeks later that the Appells learned that their pooch suffered from a congenital condition described as a "severe hip dysplasia." Although Rodriguez reportedly offered to have the animal examined by her veterinarian, the Appells elected to have the dog undergo corrective surgery and subsequently demanded a refund of the purchase price as well as the costs of the surgery.
When their demands went unheeded, a small claims case in the Justice Court of the Town of Southampton ensued and the Appells were only awarded a refund of the purchase price (presumably due to their failure to comply with the contract's terms and conditions). On appeal, here's what the Appellate Term, 9th and 10th Judicial Districts, noted in its affirmance:
Dogs have been held to constitute "goods" within the meaning of section 2-105 of the Uniform Commercial Code, and defendant, a private breeder, is a "merchant" within the meaning of UCC 2-104 (1) ... Consequently, the award in favor of plaintiffs may be sustained based upon a finding of defendant's breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (UCC 2-314). The evidence submitted by plaintiffs at trial adequately established that the dog suffered from severe hip dysplasia, a congenital condition which, by its nature, had to have existed at the time of sale, and could not have resulted from any mistreatment while under the care of plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court's conclusion that plaintiffs were entitled to recover the $1,500 purchase price (UCC 2-714 [1]) was supported by the record and rendered "substantial justice between the parties" (UJCA 1804).
I'm sure the outcome (and wording) of this case will dog quite a few people.
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision in Appell v. Rodriguez, please click on the following link: Appell v. Rodriguez