[gemy]

This am just got forwarded an email from Betty, which we discussed later on this am.

The substance of the email, is that the lil Hav she has fallen in love with has "cherry eye". In one eye.

The problem is that this condition was not just "discovered" over the past few days, but is a repeat of what happened several months ago.

My friend feels (and I concur) why was this only disclosed at the 11th hour?

How could the breeder have thought that this condition "albeit" seemed to have resolved itself was not something to mention prior to even getting to the contract point? There was a reason given by the breeder. When they noticed the condition a couple of days ago, they pulled her health records and realized this was the second occurence. They have already taken her to the vet, and will have surgery done - they did elaborate succinctly yet clearly in their email about the options and why they have chosen surgery.


Betty is so very upset, as am I! My dear friend wanted to "pay me" for my fare to Chicago as she felt as if I was going for her. I said no way. It was my choice to go see the show. And I am still going. I need to review some of the upcoming BRT's - And I will be speaking in person to that Hav breeder! I have saved all the emails sent with their original time stamps.

Also Betty was un-successful in getting the clause I talked about earlier changed. At that point in time, it didn't deter her.

Betty at this time has indicated she now does not want to deal with this breeder and will decline signing the contract and her interest in this dog. And I am grateful she did not go ahead and sign the contract as she was going to do on Monday this week!!

At issue for me is "when" that disclosure should have taken place. Specifically the previous cherry eye that was manually manipulated back into place a couple of months ago? The breeders explanation is that they had "forgotten about the first instance" and it was only when the cherry returned a couple of days ago, and they pulled her health records that they noted the previous instance.
Now maybe technically they have fully disclosed prior "contract signature" but they have left a bad taste in Betty's mouth as well as mine.