Dog breeder ordered by Disputes Tribunal to refund owner of dog with knee condition

A dog with a hereditary condition that causes its knees to dislocate has been the centre of a Disputes Tribunal claim. Photo / 123rf

A dog breeder must refund a man who bought a puppy after it was realised the canine has a hereditary condition that caused its kneecaps to dislocate.

The buyer purchased the dog when it was six months old in late 2021 for $3000 but a year later a vet found it had a “luxating patella” affecting two of its knees.

After finding out his pet would require ongoing treatment and rehabilitation, the owner took the breeder who sold it to him to the Disputes Tribunal in the hope of getting a full refund.

According to the decision released this week, the owner, who is not named in the decision, wanted to keep the dog and in addition to reimbursement of the purchase price, he also wanted compensation for past, ongoing and expected veterinary costs.

Tribunal referee Graham Rossiter determined it was likely the dog’s knee condition was hereditary and there was a strong prospect if not an inevitability it would develop at some point.

He said applying the principles of the Consumer Guarantees Act, which covered goods and services purchased for personal, domestic or household use, was problematic when applying the Act to a pet.

But he concluded the dog, of an unnamed breed, was subject to the same rules as any other kind of product bought and sold.

“I am able to find, without, I think, too much difficulty that the pet puppy sold by the respondent to the applicant is not of ‘acceptable quality’.”

In submissions to the tribunal, the breeder, who is not named in the decision, accepted the dog’s condition but said she should not be liable for the ongoing costs related to its health.

She suggested the knee condition could be due to “environmental factors”.

Rossiter, however, said there was no credible evidence to support that suggestion.

On what the dog owner sought from the breeder, Rossiter found it was unrealistic, “at a quite high level”.

An expectation for the breeder to meet the future cost of the dog’s rehabilitation was not consistent with the spirit, and intent, of the Act, he said.

“It would be analogous to a consumer saying that, with full knowledge of a good’s defect, he will continue using the good, but expect the supplier to indefinitely, and for the future, meet all additional costs arising from the defect.”

However, Rossiter said if a good supplied to a consumer was not of “acceptable quality”, that consumer would be entitled to a remedy.

“In this case, the applicant is, without question, entitled to compensation. However, the assessment of that should be reasonable, and proportionate.”

He said it was a harsh but necessary part of life for a dog owner to draw a line under the ongoing costs associated with an animal, especially in this case where the dog’s owner had formed an emotional attachment to it and didn’t want to return it.

Both parties agreed the puppy’s value was reduced because of its knee condition and $3000 was too much to pay for an animal with ongoing and unspecified rehabilitation costs.

Rossiter ordered the breeder to reimburse the owner $2000 from the purchase price and $300 towards vet expenses.

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.