[s213062]

A purchaser may also be able to find remedy under U.C.C. § 2 – 315. This section provides an implied warranty that goods shall be fit for a buyer’s particular purpose and the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select and furnish suitable goods. This section would be very applicable in the situation of a person purchasing a puppy from a breeder. The breeder is holding him or herself out as having special knowledge of the breed and of their particular dogs for sale. The purchaser is justifiably relying on the seller’s skill and judgment in selecting his or her new puppy. In Dempsey v. Rosenthal, the court held the seller of a puppy breached the implied warranty for a particular purpose in selling a pedigree puppy that was flawed by an undescended testicle. The court reasoned it is reasonable for a seller of a pedigree dog to assume that the buyer intends to breed it.
If the seller is found in breech they should provide notice to the seller under U.C.C. § 2-607(3)(a) and recover under U.C.C. § 2-715 which allows the buyer to recover incidental and consequential damages. U.C.C. § 2-715 states:
(1) Incidental damages resulting from the seller’s breach include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation and care and custody of goods rightfully rejected, any commercially reasonable charges, expenses or commission in connection with effecting cover and any other reasonable expense incident to the delay or other breach.
(2) Consequential damages resulting from the seller’s breach include
(a) any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise; and
(b) injury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach of warranty.
Negligence
A buyer of a defective animal could also bring a negligence claim against the seller. In Brandon v. Petsmart, the plaintiff’s response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment argued a negligence claim against Petsmart. The court defined what the Plaintiff needed to prove a negligence claim. It must be established the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached its duty to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was injured, and the injury was a direct and proximate result of the defendant’s breach of duty. In Brandon v. Petsmart, the court concluded Petsmart had a duty to ensure it was selling disease free animals to the public. As part of Petsmart fulfilling its duty it should have a set of procedures in place to address the health and welfare of its animals or have those animals examined by a veterinarian. Because Petsmart sold an unhealthy animal Petsmart breached its duty by selling a defective animal the court denied Petsmart’s summary judgment motion.
Other negligence claims may also prove to be good arguments against breeders. A failure to exercise reasonable care in manufacturing a product is the basis for a manufacturing defect claim. Breeders producing mass quantities of puppies for sale could be held to the standard of manufacturing a product. Similar to the manufacturing defect claim is the design defect claim. A breeder’s motto is “breed to improve and encompassing the motto is selective breeding which is the process of breeding animals of the highest quality in an effort to produce offspring with the most desirous traits.” If a breeder is producing a defective product and essentially designing the product through genetic altering of the breed perhaps a design defect claim could be argued against the breeder. And finally, similar to the U.C.C. warranty claims a buyer could bring a negligent misrepresentation claim against the seller if the seller provided misrepresentation about a material fact and the buyer justifiably relied upon it.
It is possible to argue a products liability, warranty theory, or negligence theory under existing Missouri law. However, as many other states have done it is imperative Missouri adopt lemon laws for the sale of animals. Because of the lax enforcement of the regulations in the breeding and animal care facilities industry in Missouri thousands of animals are suffering. The breeders and retailers are not taking the responsibility to properly care for the animals and as a result are selling sick and diseased animals. In no other business industry is a seller able to sell a defective product without any consequences. I strongly encourage the Missouri legislature to take the initiative and enact laws to protect both the animals and consumers caught in the Missouri puppy mill phenomenon.