Pet Shop Sues for Defamation
 

This is a cross post from another site but I thought is was important enough to let our members know about because it could happen here just as easily. I would never want to discourage the fight against puppymills and pet stores that bu y from puppymills but just make sure you know the facts before you post anything so you cannot be accused of defamation. If it is TRUE, it is not defamation. Also, if you say "in my opinion" it is not defamation.

Singapore: Pet shop sues dead dog's owner over Net posting

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Arul John
tnp@sph.com.sg



COURT recently handled an unusual case - two people embroiled in a fight over a dead puppy.

The fight erupted after the 3-month-old puppy, a Jack Russell terrier, died soon after it was bought from a pet shop.

The disappointed pet owner posted an Internet message to say the shop knowingly sold him a sick puppy.

The angry shop owner, a woman, sued the buyer for defamation.

The case, believed to be the first of its kind here, was settled amicably after the buyer agreed to apologise.

The tussle is believed to have cost the parties about $20,000 in total, for damages and legal fees.

It all started from a message the puppy's owner, shipping clerk Wilson Tan, 30, posted on an Internet discussion forum a week before the puppy, which he named Jasper, died on Feb 29 last year.

He accused Mr William Lim, who runs The Puppy Shop near Chua Chu Kang, of selling him a dog which was sick.

He also accused Mr Lim of pretending to be an animal specialist and being dishonest.

He urged people not to patronise the shop.

Mr Lim's daughter, Ms Sharon Lim, 31, who owns the shop, saw the Internet message. She and her father sued Mr Tan.

According to court documents, Mr Tan bought the puppy for $1,008 from Mr Lim on Jan 25 last year. As he did not have the money himself, he and five other friends chipped in to pay for the dog.

VACCINATED

At the time of the purchase, Mr Lim said the dog was properly vaccinated and he even made sure it was healthy before selling it.

But Mr Tan claimed the puppy became very sick soon after he took it home.

He said that in early February, the puppy was treated for blood in its stools. Barely two weeks later, it also started coughing and having diarrhoea.

He took the dog to Mount Pleasant Animal Clinic (North), where a vet told him the puppy was abnormal and needed more tests.

Three days later, he said the puppy collapsed and was taken to Mount Pleasant Animal Hospital (MPAH).

On Feb 24, Mr Tan posted the defamatory Internet message.

A medical report on Feb 25 by hospital veterinarians Anthony Goh and Boon Chia Yun said the puppy had 'a circling gait and incoordination'.

It also had neurological problems that might have been caused by an infection or a birth defect.

Another veterinarian who examined the dog, Dr Carolyn Carlson of the Animal Recovery Centre, said its left side was weak and its skull was swollen because of possible fluid buildup in the brain.

She added that such conditions were often inborn, but neither she nor the other veterinarians Mr Tan visited could pinpoint the cause of the puppy's condition.

In the end, all the treatments failed - Jasper was put to sleep on Feb 29 and cremated the same day.

On Mar 1, Ms Lim went into the Internet discussion forum and saw Mr Tan's message.

She filed a police report the next day and later went to court.

A two-day trial was to have started on Wednesday, but after both parties met the the judge in chambers, they decided to settle the dispute out of court.

Lawyer David Rasif, who represented Mr Lim and the pet shop, said Mr Tan agreed to pay an undisclosed sum in damages.

The New Paper understands the damages amounted to a few thousand dollars.

Mr Rasif added that Mr Tan agreed to post an apology in the same Internet forum where his defamatory remarks appeared.

In the message, he indicated that he 'unreservedly apologised' to Mr Lim and The Puppy Shop for his 'unjustified and unfair' comments on the Farmart Centre website.

When contacted, Ms Lim said: 'We are satisfied with the judgment. We run an honest business and our puppies' health and the homes they go to are our first priority.

'Veterinarians check our puppies every week. That is why we were upset and humiliated at the unjustified and unfair comments in the message.'

Mr Tan's lawyer, Ms Jeanny Ng, said they persuaded the Lims to settle for less than they had earlier asked for.

After the case, Mr Tan said he wished he had not been so impulsive.

He said he had wanted to write about his experience but admitted that it was wrong of him to make the defamatory remarks.

He said he now has another puppy, a Bichon Frise, named Richie, and wanted to put the case behind him.

He said: 'I got the dog from friends and Richie is sensitive to my moods. He comes to me when he sees I am down and hangs around until I feel better.'

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/top/st.....

Thanks for sharing, Kim.

This should be very eye-opening for those that also have bad issues with breeders, etc. Just be careful with what you post about a business or a person. People just love sueing these days.

Someone else started a new thrwd about this in th OT section and i just wanted to bump it up so they could see that I include the fact that it did not happen in our counrty but rather in Singapore but it would hav ehad the smae result here because it was found tht the Buyer LIED about the facts and defamed the pet store.

I merely want to help our members stop pet stores who buy their puppies from puppymills and do it wothout subjecting themselves unnecessarily to liability. If what you say and publish is TRUE and you state that it is your opinion there is no way the Pet Stire could prevail in a lawsuit.

I know this is offtopic -- but . . . why post this here when you're only directing this comment to one person? *scratching my head* Wouldn't a link on the other thread or a PM serve a better purpose?

kim, i really hope that you are not directing that at me. what happened between me and royalpuppies is something that many has said not
just me! what i said is my opinion, just like what everyone said is their opinion also. i don't feel that we would get the same result here at all. you were not involved with the dispute between members and royal puppies, sooo i don't understand why you feel the need to keep "defending" them. yes, i feel that you just keep bringing it up, just so you can defend them. i just don't get it at all....

What I would like to know if this is true, why would a 2 day trial cost over $20,000?. We are not allowed to express our feelings and concerns and opinions?...

My guess is that the $20,000 includes legal fees for the pre-trial preparation, research fees, yada, all of that legal mumbo-jumbo.

WOW! Now if the owner did indeed LIE about what happened to the pup, then I agree that he should pay damages. However, if the pup was indeed sick and obviously it was or else it wouldn't have died in 2 weeks. That is a shame both for the pup and the owners. No one should have to go through this type of heartache!

HUH? Where did that come from? This has no relation to Royal Puppies that I can see. Royal puppies is not a pet store so no, Jessica, this was not directed at you or anyone in particular. I just found it topical as we are all fighting to close Pet Stores that buy from Puppymills and we need to be careful so as not to subject ourselves to liability accidentally.

This post was not intened to be controversial in the least. I don't think it is.

okay thanks, and i apologize.

Wow...I guess this is for ME. I know you have this same thread in off topic ...Why post it twice?

The way I see it Kim is this way. IF someone has an experience with a PET STORE that is BAD I think people want to know about it. We all know about Pet Stores and I really think your purpose with this post is to offer more legal advise. I really would hope no one would open this site to defamation but are we really worried about this here in this thread ?

I can appreciate that you went to law school but so many things turn into legal topics and scaring people into NOT posting things important won't help all the Pet Store puppies in the long run. I see lots of posts telling us how to do things on this forum but so far ...most things stay within the law.

In my opinion ONE article that happened in Singapore is a fluke and unless it's totally absurd and damages a business and they can prove it - I think we should all be able to speak of our own experiences without worrying if we are going to be sued....after all - this is a Yorkie site....this isn't Time Magazine

Well said Villette :thumbup: :D

Thank you ! I just don't want to see people scared over posting on the net - we are far freer than this thread leads you to believe and that article probably had way more going on than they published.

We learn alot from members who share their experiences - it would be a shame for people to be afraid to post something that could help another person. Besides - if something was ever said that was too far past the legal boundries - we have the DELETE key and the thread can be gone and no one gets in trouble.

The Administrator on this site would know if someone is stepping over the line and I would trust them to take care of it.

Well that's like poor Allison here a member on YT. Bruce's mom. She bought bruce from a pet store, before knowing much about them and now she's spending thousands to get his teeth fixed and ready for braces. His bite is soo bad that his lower teeth puncture the roof of his mouth. She came on here and warned us all about the store and she's trying to settle the case with them or she will sue them for selling her a puppy they knew had problems. I personally would WANT to know and would want others to know if this happened to me. The guy obviously didn't have a very good attorney, because I'd like to see a pet store sue me after giving me a sick puppy!!!

Villette: You are so funny...you are the one who started the dupicate thread in OT after I posted here....you crack me up girl..... ;)

OMG I didn't know his teeth are puncturing the roof of his mouth ! Poor baby - that sounds really painful for him...I knew about the braces but not how severe it is.

I also have a friend who bought her little guy from a Pet Store - they should PAY HER a huge award for the heartache she's enduring and though she still has him - he won't see 2 years old...THAT Pet Store knew how sick he was and even had him hidden away in the back - she literally saved his life -

The worst part is she knows one day soon....she has to give him to Rainbow Bridge. Chances are he is ill from being transported in a hot truck or never got medical attention - either way - the Pet Store is the people who knew he was ill and sold him anyway. She loves him and will have the heartache for the rest of her life. I hold THEM solely responsible for what she and her baby are going thru.

So yes...When we know of a place and can say this really happened - I think it's great to be able to help others

I agree that we should feel free to call injustices to the attention of others which is why I lend my legal advice to help our members avoid any possibility of potential litigation. After all we live in an extremely litigious society and it never hurts to learn how to avoid a lawsuit. I think most members on here welcome this advice. Those who do not can ignore it as you have chosen to do time and again.

And you are wrong about it being a "fluke" and, IMO. one should always conduct themselves honestly and forthrightly so as to avoid damaging anyone or any business. It is, after all, the right way to behave.

It wasn't directed at one person. It was directed at the entire membership. It belongs here in General imo. If admin felt differently he is free to move it. :)

Don't forget the PRINT key. The delete key to too little too late especially when others read it. Too many witnesses.

[QUOTE=SoCalyorkiLvr]SoCalyorkiLvr Quote:
Originally Posted by Carters Mom
I know this is offtopic -- but . . . why post this here when you're only directing this comment to one person? *scratching my head* Wouldn't a link on the other thread or a PM serve a better purpose?


It wasn't directed at one person. It was directed at the entire membership. It belongs here in General imo. If admin felt differently he is free to move it. [/Quote}

You were the one that bumped your own thread saying you were bringing it to the attention of a member who started a new thread. Are you now saying it wasn't directed at ONE PERSON?

[QUOTE=Carters Mom]I don't understand why this matters in the least but...
Read the second paragraph. I responded in the OT thread as well.

I don’t understand the reason for the negativity behind some of the responses on this thread. I personally think Kim did YT members a favor in posting such an article to show how simply by going on any internet forum and posting negatively about a particular place, can possibly land you in a lawsuit. I usually try to stay away from controversial threads but I just felt compelled to respond to this one. I don’t understand why Kim constantly gets attacked for doing things as simple as posting an article that potentially might benefit a YT member. Unless there are underlying issues at hand that I am unaware of, I personally don’t understand all the negativity pointed at Kim. She is right in pointing out the fact that we do presently live in a litigious world. I’ve worked in the legal field for a number of years and you’d be surprised to hear about some of the cases that do go tried. I am in no way insinuating that it’s not in your right to warn people about bad pet stores selling sick dogs, but things like adding “IMO” is beneficial to know about when doing so. I also think this article will be most beneficial especially to those who have pending lawsuits against stores. Because in the eyes of the law, everyone is innocent until proven guilty therefore defaming a place (even if you truly feel it is guilty) of wrongdoing before legally proving it, can potentially land you in a lawsuit.

Are we still on a yorkie site here ? I'm so not getting into this drama again....I think your point is made and before this thread goes any further I think I'll just stop here.