Quote:
Originally Posted by Woogie Man  I went back and read the text and found the warranty and kennel requirements kind of at odds with common sense. Of course, you would think that a 'pet dealer' would have at least the same obligation as the 'commercial breeder' when it comes to guaranteeing the pup's health so why not the same obligation with kennels and runs. If that's not the case, do we have a situation where the puppy buyer would have more protection from a commercial breeder rather than a small breeder? Imagine that (buy with confidence....buy from a puppymill  ). You said it yourself that the buyer would have to be careful and get a contract if buying from a small breeder. I'm sure the scenario I laid out is not what you meant but don't you see that this just illustrates the need for, at least, clarity? |
That's why the Pet Dealer has to keep records, if a pet owner buys a dog that was sold with a genetic defect, at least people could learn if this pet dealer was producing the dog, or if she purchased the dog from a commercial breeder, that's why this record keeping is important. I imagine lots of small breeders would run scared if a lemon law were introduced that affected them. Most good breeders do this anyway, but we all know that there are lots of small breeders who don't. I think this might help the commercial dealer as well as the small breeder to recognize that health testing before breeding is important. I think a buyer should always get a contract. If I buy a $30.00 appliance I get a warranty, people spend hundreds of dollars on pets, and should get some kind of warranty. If nothing else, the puppy lemon law would make the commercial breeder understand that health testing is in his best interest, the fewer dogs he produces with genetic defects the more money he'll make.