It started in early 2019 as a couple tried unsuccessfully to find a puppy after one of their female dogs died, and tried various breeders without having any luck.
However, after another buyer pulled out of purchasing a puppy from a breeder’s litter they leapt at the chance and paid $2000 for the female puppy the next day.
But the sale came with a caveat the couple wouldn’t breed the dog, ever. They signed the agreement and collected the dog in March 2019.
A year later the couple asked the seller if they could breed the dog as they were finding it difficult to keep her apart from their male dog.
The breeder declined and recommended they keep them apart while the female was on heat by putting one of them in a crate.
However, the dog became pregnant a year later and gave birth to a litter of eight puppies which the couple put on Trade Me for sale in July 2022.
The breeder saw the listing and demanded $16,000 in compensation - the total sale price of the whole litter.
He later amended his claim to $3800 after the couple produced evidence about how much they’d actually made on the sale of the litter.
The couple initially counter-sued for $30,000 on the basis the breeder misrepresented the dog as “show quality”, and that they had incurred losses of $1000 which was the difference in value between what they paid and the average market price for a non-show quality dog of the same breed.
They also claimed $9000 for the lost chance to show the dog and $20,000 for the lost chance to breed show quality puppies from it.
The couple argued before the Disputes Tribunal that “accidental mating” is different to being intentionally bred because, they argued, “breeding” was a deliberate process managed by the owners.
However, the tribunal referee found the couple’s interpretation of the contract was too narrow and while they had taken reasonable steps to ensure the dog didn’t get pregnant it nevertheless did.
“…the very fact of the dog producing puppies was a breach of the contractual endorsement”, Perfect said.
The breeder who sold them the dog tried to claim he’d lost money as a result of the breach of contract and attempted to recoup the $16,000 paid for the puppies that were sold from the dog’s litter.
But he provided no evidence to show he would have incurred a loss and in the couple’s submission, they proved that after expenses they only made just under $4000 from the sales.
“…he [the breeder] has suffered no quantifiable financial loss as a result of the puppies being sold,” Perfect said.
“Based on the evidence provided, it also appears that the couple’s actual costs incurred in providing for the puppies and finding them homes, exceeded the income obtained from the sale of the puppies so they have made no profit as a result of the breach.”
Perfect said the couple’s counterclaim of $30,000 “failed at the first hurdle” because they’d failed to prove any misrepresentation had occurred.
The original listing for their puppy stated the dog could be “worth trying in the show ring if you were so inclined”.
“His representation does not give any guarantee of success in the show ring and it would be impossible to make any such guarantee for a puppy so young, given the variables involved,” Perfect said.
“Given the nature of the issue, I do not consider it unusual for different breeders/breed enthusiasts to have different opinions as to what qualities of a breed are show worthy.”
Perfect said that any remedy the couple sought relied on the argument there had been a false statement about the dog’s show quality ability - which they failed to prove.
She dismissed the claims from both the breeder and the couple.
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.
