There have been a few posts over recent months about dogs and other animals coming under the Sale of Goods Act, I'm a bit skeptical about this, as it lays the foot firmly at the door of a breeder, and the owner takes no responsibility. I'll stick a disclaimer in here, I know there's a thread currently going on about something similar in the Chat section, but I haven't had time to read it properly, just saw the link which prompted my brain to churn out random thoughts.

So, if you buy a fifty pound electric cordless drill, because you can't afford the all singing dancing price of £250, you really can't expect the same product, and nor should you expect it to perform the same. Not that I'm saying there is a price difference between all breeders, nor should your decision be based on price, but you get the jist hopefully. It's a hard to come up with a similar analogy if you see what I mean. But a reliable Brand is usually more expensive, with dogs, and many other animals, that's different, they're usually around the same price as other similar 'types', the only variance is usually those who aren't ethical, selling too cheaply because they've cut corners, or for too much on some novelty factor.

Whilst I think it's good that a buyer has some genuine come back, if they have been hoodwinked, if you're buying an animal, it's up to you to buy as responsibly as possible. It's the only way of ensuring you get what you buy. Swarthy did an excellent post that was made into a sticky, 'The Puppy Buyer's Responsibility', which really says it all for me. There is of course, no real guarantee from anyone, which is why I'm wary of strict rules and laws, health tests do not mean your dog will live a long and happy life, nor is it always clear cut exactly which ones SHOULD be done.

So do you think animals should come under the SOGA? Or do you think there should be some separate legislation, that somehow differentiates between various types of breeder? Perhaps the only way is that cases are investigated individually, and the 'guilty' party pays up for costs. These are just thoughts off the top of my head, and not necessarily realistic suggestions, it's a problem that's been discussed many times, and will be discussed many more I'm sure. I think the first real step would be to stop the sale of any animal from pet shops, they have a vested interest in flogging you pets, and now many die en-route, fish are one that spring to mind, I don't think I've ever been into a P@H store and not seen at least one dead fish. Anyway, hope you've made it to my mad ramblings, any thoughts?

No, because a puppy is a living breathing thing and no matter how many tests you run on parents, how many vet checks are done things can still NATURALLY go wrong and its not like with a mechanical item where you can just go back to the 'shop' and get it replaced. Alot of time, effort and emotion goes into a litter and a breeder can't just 'get another from the stock room'

But I do think somrhting else has to be done to try and solve some of the problems.

__________________
2 pugs Poppy-Mae and Lily-Lou and CKCS Daisy-Boo

You bet I don't! and whatever muppet put em in that catogary cannot be an animal lover! that said there does need to be something in place re the ale of animals!
DT

It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not, the law is the law, and puppies sold "IN THE COURSE OF A BUSINESS" come under the Sale of Goods Act - which covers ANY new or second Hand item which is sold under a certain value (used to be £15K) is covered under the Sale of Goods Act and should be 'Fit for Purpose' and of "Satisfactory Quality" - and this would undoubtedly cover ALL puppy farmers. Unfortunately, some of them have the preferred discussion method of a loaded shotgun - making puppy buyers easy targets as they won't fight back (and if they will do that on TV - goodness knows what they would do when the camera's aren't around )

Interestingly, browsing the web, I just found a post on Consumer Rights about an Aggressive Puppy - when puppies are not aggressive - they are just being normal puppies - the risk of non-dog people getting involved in something they know nothing about

Many good breeders have a clause in their contract that the pup should be checked over by the buyers vet within 'x' days (between 3 and 7) to ensure the pup is in good health at that time - and if it isn't - they will give a full refund if the pup is returned.


And this is why it is so important to have a signed contract in place of the sale - clearly outlining any risks / potential health problems etc from the outset.

Although the law covers the sale of dogs - you CAN counteract for things over which the breeder has no control - by mitigating the situation from the outset by making it clear both verbally and in writing.

__________________
What you need to know before buying a Labrador puppy

It's a hypothetical question, I'm aware that it's law, and I'm also aware that it's the law that we should all be insured and have a licence to drive, doesn't meant everyone abides by it, as I know you're aware.

I just don't think any living animal should be lumped in with the sale of inanimate objects, but they are; is it because no better way has been developed to deal with their sale, or through ignorance that animals are allowed to be classified in this way. I don't know, but I'm sure there must be a better way?

What you can expect it to do is what it says it will do. If you buy a £50 drill that says it can do all the things an expensive one does then yes, I would expect it to perform the same and would seek a refund if it didn't.

If it claimed to do half the things, then I would expect those half things to be done.

I kind of agree with it, kind of don't. It would give buyers more protection and perhaps make unethical breeders think twice about lying when selling a pup if they can be held responsible afterwards. But on the other hand, its a living creature.

__________________

No you wouldn't - BUT you have a legal right to expect it to do 'what it says on the tin' - i.e. be a cordless drill with pre-specified features - you wouldn't expect it to have as many fancy features as the £250 drill - but nevertheless, it will be a drill - and under the SOGA you have a legal right to expect it to do be a drill and have all the working features it describes and to last for a reasonable period of time in line with it's product lifetime expectations.

What a lot of people don't realise is that although most products only, by default, have 1 year guarantee - SoGA over-rides this - not dog related - but stores will do everything in their power to deny all knowledge of the SoGA - and as for suggesting to them it covers 2nd hand, reconditioned and discounted products - they will try and wriggle out beautifully if you don't stick to your guns

__________________
What you need to know before buying a Labrador puppy

Chuckle, I never buy the 12 month extra insurance that they offer with goods, and always tell them if it goes wrong within 12 months I will get a refund, a few do like to try and argue the toss about it, but I'm a natural haggler!!

When you think about your shopping habits, you usually go for a brand or product that's been reliable or that's come recommended, you see people posting about recommendations for washing machines for example. So it amazes me that people go to a pet shop, buy an animal, and are surprised when it's not really the best example of that animal for whatever reason, ill, deformed, even unfortunately if it dies. I know it's something you're said many times on here Swarthy, that people think less about buying a pet, than they do about other items we purchase

Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, and as a private seller, ie. you are not a business, then the only rules the seller has to abide by are:

1. The the dog/cat was sold as described, so if you say you have a white poodle, male.....then it has to be that and not a black lab female.
2. The animal belonged to seller before it was sold.

Yes purely because it offers some form of protection for whoever buys the puppy and I'm not aware of anything else that would offer that.

__________________