G'day, Eddy here.
 
"birdwalk" mentioned:
<<<< I know at least 5 people with dogs from Australia that have required hip surgery. One imported as a pregnant dog for no small amount of money needed a double hip replacement. A dog that never should have been bred in the first place. >>>>
 
 
Dogs can sustain injury to the hips where surgery might be required, also other things even nutrition can effect hips, so was the hip surgeries required due to hip dysplasia or from some other cause? 
 
As for the imported pregnant bitch, well breeders know quite well to have all breeding stock elbow and hip tested by specialists using systems like PennHip or BVA, this when the dogs have fully scaletally matured at about 18 months old, and breeding only goes ahead if both parents elbows and hips are OK and does NOT have any abnormaly such as dysplasia. If surgery was required for hip dysplasia then this certainly would have been very clearly seen on x-ray.
 
By the way here is something interesting, the Australian ANKC Registry and it's Breed Clubs mentioned the following to all it's breeders which applies as "common law" in Australia and would even also apply to breeders of Australian Labradoodles:- 
Legally any product sold must be suitable for the purpose for which it is purchased. Accordingly the courts recognise this in the sale of puppies, and if a puppy develops an hereditary disease then the breeder is held responsible. The only probable defence is to show all reasonable efforts have been made to avoid hereditary diseases. If there is a recognised test of an hereditary disease and a breeder does not use the test but sells a puppy which late develops that disease, then it is hard to see how the breeder has a legal defence. This is especially so where a DNA test is involved.
Legal liability - Breeders should be aware that where hip dysplasia is known to be a problem in their breed, breeding from untested animals or those with scores higher than breed average could place them in a difficult legal position if they produce a puppy which develops serious hip dysplasia.  Breeding from parents which both have low scores minimises the risk and provides a potential defence against litigation if a defective puppy is produced.
 
In Australia I am gradually hearing of more cases that have gone to court, and even in regards to a rare hereditary disease a breeder could be held legally liable such as seen in the example below which is from this news article at this address, and at the very bottom I've also added an additional link to the court case transcript:-
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/puppy-was-faulty-goods/2005/07/16/1121455936734.html
 
The Sydney Morning Herald
17 July 2005
Puppy was 'faulty goods'
By Daniel Dasey, consumer reporter
 
When is a puppy not a puppy? When it's a faulty product, the state's top consumer arbitrator has ruled.
 
In a case involving a sick border collie puppy that died from a rare genetic disease, the Consumer Tenancy and Trader Tribunal ruled the dog's breeder had the same obligation to replace and cover costs as any other retailer.
 
Dubbing the dog "goods", the tribunal found the illness constituted a "defect" that hindered the buyers' intended purpose.
 
The purchasers of the pup, Abbey, last week welcomed the decision, which also awarded them a refund of almost $3000.
 
But the case has ignited a storm of controversy among breeders.
 
The case was determined in June and the judgement published last week.
 
In evidence before the tribunal, Beecroft IT workers Graham and Belinda Dodge said they bought the $700 pup as a family pet from breeder Margaret Rockey in February 2004.
 
Within three days of the purchase the animal fell ill and, after a series of treatments at a local vet, it was transferred for treatment to a specialist centre.
 
The puppy was diagnosed with trapped neutrophil syndrome, a rare and incurable immune condition that leads to multiple infections.
 
Towards the end of February last year, Ms Rockey requested the pup be returned to her for care, but the Dodges declined. Abbey was put down on veterinary advice in March 2004. The Dodges sought a refund for the pup and a reimbursement of their veterinarian costs of $4680.
 
In her submission to the tribunal, Ms Rockey produced evidence that she was a breeder of good character and that the pup's condition had never been seen in NSW.
 
The tribunal ruled the Dodges were entitled to a refund and have some of their veterinary costs refunded.
 
"The puppy is properly described as goods for the purposes of the [Sale of Goods Act 1923]," tribunal member Des Sheehan wrote in a judgement.
 
"Expert evidence confirms that the defect was present at the time of sale and resulted in the goods being rendered unusable."
 
Mr Sheehan ordered Ms Rockey to pay veterinarian costs of $2891 - representing the time until just before she asked the Dodges to return the puppy.
 
Ms Rockey said last week the ruling was not appropriate and that she had introduced contracts requiring buyers to return puppies in the event of health problems.
 
"I love the dogs. I breed and sell, and I want it all to go right," she said.

Royal NSW Canine Council president Keith Irwin said his group would examine the decision.
 
 
Now click on this link address that I've added to have a read of the actual case transcript:-
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCTTT/2005/440.html
 
 
Eddy Safianski
Sale Victoria. Australia
Email:- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website:-
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~safcav/
...
 
__._,_.___


SPONSORED LINKS
Breed charm dog italian Dog breed gift Dog breed t shirt
Dog breed charm Labradoodle Dog breed flag


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




__,_._,___

Reply via email to