Beware of breeder - Kram Haus Kennels - in Clever, MO

[yorkiegirl2]

Originally Posted by s213062

I just wanted to let everyone know I'm still working on the puppy mill, Kram Haus Kennels, where I purchased Braxton. Braxton is doing well now and his mommy is busy taking care of what happened through all legal avenues. I will soon be posting an article I'm working on advocating for a change in Missouri law to protect consumers in purchasing sick puppies. Many other states have what's known as puppy lemon laws which are statues that require the breeder/store to reimburse the purchaser for vet bills and require a mandatory health guarantee. Missouri is notoriously known as being a puppy mill state and I believe the lack of Missouri law definitely has something do with it. Thank you all for your responses and concern. I'll keep you updated!

Just wondering how things are working out for you and Braxton???
I didn't buy one from her but had contacted her because of a male I picked up else where, that did come from her about 3 years ago.
(Thank goodness he’s ok.)
The person I got him from said that back then she ran a fairly nice program.
I guess she went down hill quick.
When I spoke to her several month back I found her to be a very rude, unprofessional person.
Needless to say, I’d never buy anything from someone like her.

There are some of us in Missouri who do try to breed the right way through educating other, testing, studying the breed, providing good health care and checkup for our dogs.
Mine get screening- checkups before breeding to make sure mom are ok and we do x-rays close to the due dates to make sure everything is ok again.
My puppies all get tails/dewclaws and shots done through the Vets.
They also get a puppy report card that checks for any problems with the heart, lung, eye, knees, hernias, skin, teeth, worms, ears, ..etc.

It’s a shame that we sometimes get lumped in with these bad breeder types because we are from Missouri.
I tell everyone.. you just have to be a little more careful when buying in Missouri, believe me I know.
I too bought a sick dog when I first started out wanting to breed..
I bought from a woman named Debbie McCabe,
AKA: DELMAC YORKIES,
AKA: ANGELIC CANINES
AKA: Partiyorkshireterrier,
This one changes her MO as about as often as she changes her underwear
and she’s also not above putting some of her websites in other peoples names for the other type of dogs she breeds..

Because of people like these ..I do hope they get stricter laws to protect the buyers, puppies and the poor breeders dogs stuck in these puppymill type situations .
I also hope they outlaw dog auctions, these just make me sick.

[Dorianyorkie]

Originally Posted by s213062

Hi. I posted a warning about this breeder under the breeder forum, however I wanted to make sure our regional yorkie talkers also got the post. I live in Kansas City and 2 weeks ago purchased a puppy from www.kramhaus.com in Clever, MO (right outside of Nixa by Springfield). When we got to her house she had several of her own dogs going to the bathroom wherever they wanted, and she didn't make any effort to clean it up. She brought our puppy out of a back room (she wouldn't allow us to go back there) and the little guy smelled terrible. He had urine and feces matted in his hair. It was obvious he had never been cleaned in his whole life. I did want to leave, but I felt so bad for this little puppy, I had to buy him. In the morning we took him to the vet (he was vomitting and bleeding out of his rectum). He had Giardia (a very contagious parasite) so we had him treated and also had to have our other yorkie treated because it is so contagious. I called Diana Kram and told her what had happened. She blamed the whole thing on me, saying I had stressed the puppy by giving him a bath and that is why he had Giardia. She refused to pay any vet bills even though she sold us a very sick puppy. The puppy also has a bladder infection (we're hoping that doesn't turn out to be something more). We've spent a lot of money in vet bills and have dealt with one of the rudest people I have ever met. Please beware.

This is horrible!!!! !! I hope your baby will get better.

[s213062]

Hi all, thanks for the concern for Braxton. He is still doing great and is a loveable, sweet puppy. For those of you who would like to know more about the current breeder laws in Missouri I recently wrote a legal research paper my last year of law school covering the topic because of the experience I went through in purchasing my yorkie from Kram Haus Kennels. I welcome any comments/suggestions. I would like to present my concerns to the Missouri legislature in hope of changing the law.


I can not attach the file so I've cut and pasted it below in more than one posting because of the word limit:

Advocating For a Change in Missouri Animal Law
By: Jennifer Van Der Steen

The purpose of this paper is to examine the legal issues surrounding the purchase of an unhealthy animal from a seller in the state of Missouri. Missouri is generally known for its reputation as “puppy mill state” and for its lax laws relating to animal care, inspections, and consumer protection. When a buyer purchases an unhealthy puppy or other animal in Missouri the buyer has very little recourse against the seller, unless the contract specifically gives the buyer rights to recover against the seller. Many other states have “puppy lemon laws” requiring the seller to reimburse the buyer for veterinarian costs and for the purchase price of the animal. Missouri does not have similar puppy lemon laws but does have other legal theories that support a buyer’s remedies against a seller. This paper will look at legal theories supporting puppy lemon laws as well as compare other states laws advocating for consumer protection.




I. Federal Law
The Animal Welfare Act regulates the humane care, handling, purchase, sale, treatment and transportation of certain animals in situations involving dog and cat breeders, puppy mills, and other animal handlers. An individual covered by the Act is required to obtain a license from the Secretary of Agriculture. The Act authorizes the United States Department of Agriculture to promulgate regulations applicable to the health and safety of animal welfare. The regulations include maintaining a minimum standard for handling, housing, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, shelter, adequate veterinary care, and separation by species necessary for humane handling, care, or treatment of animals. The regulations also include exercise of dogs, as determined by an attending veterinarian, and for a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of primates.
The United States Department of Agriculture makes regular inspections to ensure licensed facilities are complying with the requirements of the Act and if an individual is found in violation of the Act the violator may be fined, have their licensed revoked, or found to be criminally liable.




II. Missouri State Law
In 1992 the Missouri State Legislature established the Animal Care Facilities Act. The Act requires a person operating a boarding facility, pet shop, pound, dealer and commercial breeders to obtain a license from the director. An inspection is required to obtain a license and an inspection is to be required annually or on the basis of a complaint. If the state veterinarian or an animal welfare official finds a substantial ongoing risk to the health and welfare of the animals or to pose a substantial ongoing risk that consumers will purchase diseased animals from such person a temporary or permanent injunction can be issued and the animals can be taken into custody.
Specific regulations require adequate housing, outdoor cages must allow the animal to sit, stand, lay, and turn around, and cages must prevent foot and leg injuries and meet certain size requirements. Animals must be supplied with adequate food and water and sanitary conditions. Floors should be sanitized and spot cleaned daily, and waste, bedding, debris and dead animals must be removed regularly and frequently. In addition, health records of each animal are to be kept for one year on each animal or liter, and adequate ventilation, temperature and light are to be maintained on the premises.

III. Missouri Department of Agriculture Inspectors Fail State Audits
In 2001 and 2004 the Missouri office of the state auditor, under the direction of Claire McCaskill, completed performance audits on the Missouri Animal Care Facilities Inspection Program. , Both audits failed the program and shed light onto what was really taking place in the Missouri Department of Agriculture inspection programs.
The 2001 report found: the state inspections to issue few sanctions when violations were present, a conflict of interest in top management, state inspections are less through than federal inspections, and the program was overall lax in measuring performance. The Missouri Animal Care Facilities Act provides the authority to enforce sanctions and penalties against commercial breeders. However, the inspections have failed to use this authority in their inspections. Instead of citing violating breeders the inspectors have instead encouraged the breeders to comply with standards. The audit compared facilities that had been given a state inspection that was then followed by a federal inspection. Both inspections look for the same violations. In 1992 the Missouri state legislature established the Animal Care Facilities Act and in 1994 established the Animal Care Facilities Act Program to carry out the Act. The program was modeled after the United States Department of Agriculture regulation of minimum requirements for the operation of animal care facilities. State inspectors did not document all and in most cases any violations, when federal inspectors performed their inspection many violations were documented. One state inspector stated, “he does not nitpick breeders like federal inspectors do.” In the federal inspection program breeders are cited for violations and then if the same violation is cited again at a later date the sanction increases and the breeder is subject to the lose of his/her license. When state inspectors do not cite for violations and these violations are not later corrected there is no incentive for the breeder to comply.
Another serious concern discussed in the audits is the conflict of interest problem the state inspectors have within the department. The program is managed and operated by persons who have spouses operating commercial breeding facilities. The audit also found the program inspectors made little use of available information to improve their operations. The inspectors did not make use of the federal inspection results, and the program directors did not make use of analyzing the inspector’s weekly activity reports to implement program changes to make a better use of the inspector’s time. A management reporting system would allow management to review and question the inspector’s activities.
In 2004 a follow-up review audit of the 2001 audit was performed. Unfortunately the majority of the findings in the first audit were still occurring. As in the 2001 audit, federal inspectors were still finding many violations the state inspectors were not citing. “Despite enhanced procedures to assist the thoroughness of the inspection process, the majority of inspectors believe it unnecessary to report all violations observed at licensed facilities. Those inspectors believe they should not report minor violations.” In addition, mandatory training courses have not been implemented within the program. While there has been some increased usage of penalties since 2001 the program still fails to actively use the authority granted by the Act. Instead of using the express authority in the Act to use administrative hearings, confiscate animals, and to enforce penalties the program would prefer to pursue settlements and the voluntary surrender of licenses. As a result of this lax enforcement by the state inspectors animals are in grave risk as well as consumers who purchase these animals.
The 2004 audit also found the inspectors have not meet the statutory requirements of inspecting all licensed facilities on an annual basis and inspecting pre-licensing facilities. The report noted a problem with the key personnel vacancies not being filled and a number of the inspectors are not on a full-time basis. In addition to this, the workload of the program has increased significantly.
As stated in the 2001 audit the program has not implemented a management information system to account for and analyze the work of the inspectors. As a result the program is missing opportunities to improve.
These audits indicate a very serious public health concern over the breeding and animal care in animal care facilities. The breeders have no incentive to comply with the regulations the Missouri legislature has enacted. As a direct result of this animals are suffering all over Missouri. The problem is perpetuated when an unsuspecting buyer purchases an animal from these conditions. It is the buyer who ultimately pays the cost of the breeder’s non compliance with Missouri law. To remedy this the buyer should have some legal protection to gain recourse against the breeder. The Missouri legislature has done its job by enacting law to protect these animals, unfortunately the Missouri Department of Agriculture is not enforcing that law. If Missouri would pass what’s known as “puppy lemon laws” this would give a buyer a remedy to enforce the main principles of the Missouri Animal Care Facilities Act against the breeder. The Missouri Animal Care Facilities Act sought to penalize facilities raising animals in unhealthy, unsanitary conditions. These conditions lead to a variety of communicable diseases in animals as well as many other health problems. Many other states have puppy lemon laws that offer consumer protection for unhealthy animals purchased from a retailer or breeder.

[s213062]

IV. Other states establish “Puppy Lemon Laws”
Seventeen states have enacted lemon laws as a consumer remedy when purchasing certain animals. The states give a minimum of seven to twenty days for the consumer to have the animal checked for an illness and some states give even longer for congenital or hereditary disorders. Remedies for the purchaser range from a refund of the purchase price, an exchange for an animal of equivalent value, and reimbursement for veterinarian expenses.
In Arizona a dog or cat purchased from a pet dealer may be declared unfit within fifteen days after purchase. The purchaser may return the animal for a refund, exchange the animal and receive reimbursement for the veterinarian bills up to the purchase price, or choose to keep the animal and receive the reimbursement for the veterinarian bills up to the purchase price.
In California a written notice of rights is required by the breeder in any sale. The notice informs the purchaser of the rights he or she has against the breeder if their animal is found to be unfit within fifteen days of purchase because of an pre-existing illness. The purchaser may return the dog and receive reimbursement of the veterinarian bills, return and receive a replacement dog in addition to the veterinarian bills, or keep the dog and receive up to 150% of the purchase price of the dog for veterinarian bills.
In South Carolina if a dog or cat is found to be unfit due to a non-congenital condition with fourteen days of purchase or within six months due to a congenital health condition the purchaser may receive a refund and reimbursement for veterinarian bills not to exceed fifty percent of the purchase price of the animal, or retain the animal and receive a refund of the veterinarian bills not to exceed fifty percent of the purchase price.
In Connecticut pet stores are required to provide for a veterinarian examination of a purchased dog or cat. If the animal is found to have an illness that existed at the time of sale within fifteen days of purchase the consumer may replace the animal or receive a full refund.
In Delaware a purchaser is entitled to remedy from a seller if within twenty days of purchase the animal is found to suffer from an illness at the time of sale, or within two years the animal is found to suffer from a congenital or heredity defect the purchaser may return the animal for a refund and receive reimbursement for veterinarian bills not to exceed the purchase price, receive a comparable animal and receive reimbursement of veterinarian expenses not to exceed the original purchase price, retain the animal and receive reimbursement of veterinarian expenses not to exceed the purchase price.
In Maine an animal can be declared unfit for purchase within ten days of purchase or up to one year for congenital or hereditary defects. The purchaser may receive a full refund, exchange the animal for another animal of equal value, or retain the animal and receive reimbursement of veterinarian expenses not to exceed one half of the purchase price. If an animal dies that would have been unfit at the time of purchase the purchaser may receive a full refund or another animal of equal value.
Virginia law allows the purchaser to receive a refund or an exchange of equivalent value of the original purchase price if the animal is found to have the symptoms of a contagious or infectious disease or any congenital or heredity health defect within ten days of purchase.
In New York a purchaser of a dog or cat may have the animal declared unfit by a veterinarian if a contagious or infectious disease or congenital or hereditary defect is found present within fourteen days of purchase. The purchaser may either return the dog for a full refund, opt for replacement, or retain the dog. All of the options include reimbursement of veterinarian expenses up to the purchase price of the animal.
In Minnesota a purchaser has the right to a full refund or exchange and reimbursement of veterinarian costs within tend days of purchase if the animal is found to have a health problem at the time of sale. The purchaser retains these rights up to one year if a congenital or hereditary defect is found.
Vermont law gives purchaser of a dog or cat seven days to have the animal examined for an illness or up to one year for a congenital or hereditary defect with the right to receive a refund, exchange, or reimbursement of veterinarian bills up to the purchase price.
In Arkansas a consumer may have the dog or cat examined by a veterinarian, and if within ten days of purchase the animal is found to have an illness the purchaser may be reimbursed for veterinarian expenses up to the purchase price.
In Florida a consumer has fourteen days to have the dog or cat examined by a veterinarian and if any illness, infectious or contagious disease, or the presence of any internal or external parasites are found the purchaser has remedies against the seller. If any congenital or heredity defect is found within one year after purchase the purchaser may also invoke the following remedies. The purchaser may receive reimbursement for the veterinarian costs up to the purchase price of the animal and either retain the animal, refund the animal for the full price, or receive and exchange or equal value.
In Massachusetts the consumer protection governing the sale of animal is not by statute but by regulation. The regulation stipulates the purchaser has fourteen days to have the animal examined by a veterinarian and if the animal is found to have a disease or congenital disorder the purchaser can receive a refund or an exchange of equal value.
In New Hampshire the purchase of a dog, cat, or ferret has fourteen days to have animal examined by a veterinarian and if there is the presence of a disease the purchaser is entitled to a full refund or exchange of equal value. There is currently a proposed house bill to amend the current statute to give the purchaser twenty days to have the animal examined by a veterinarian and offer the purchaser additional remedies against the seller such as: the right to receive a refund and reimbursement for veterinarian expenses, the right to an exchange and reimbursement for veterinarian expenses, or reimbursement for veterinarian expenses for up to one year to cure the disease up to the purchase price of the animal.
In New Jersey a purchaser has recourse against the seller if within fourteen days the animal has a non-congenital illness as found by a veterinarian, or if within one hundred eighty days of purchase the animal is found have a congenital or heredity condition. The purchaser may receive reimbursement for veterinarian expenses up to twice the amount paid for the animal, return the animal with a full refund and veterinarian costs, retain the animal with veterinarian costs, or exchange the animal for one of equal value.
Nevada law requires a seller to refund the purchaser veterinarian costs up to the purchase price of the animal, and offer a refund or an exchange of the animal if the animal is found to have an illness or disease that existed at the time of sale. A veterinarian must make this determination within ten days of purchase.
In Pennsylvania a purchaser has ten days from the time of purchase to have the animal examined by a veterinarian and if any illness is present the purchaser may return the dog for a refund, exchange the dog for one of equal value, or retain the dog and receive reimbursement for any veterinarian costs up to the purchase price of the dog. The purchaser can also elect these remedies if a congenital or heredity condition is found within thirty days of purchase. There is also proposed legislation changing the time frame to invoke purchaser’s remedies from ten days for illness to fourteen days and from thirty days for congenital or heredity conditions to ninety days.
V. Finding Remedies through the application of other Missouri law
Defining animals as “products” gives consumers greater production under the theory of product liability
The definition of the term product varies between the Black’s Law dictionary, the Uniform Commercial Code, the Restatement, and state legislature. Black’s law defines product as “something that is distributed commercially for use or consumption at that is usually (1) tangible personal property, (2) the result of fabrication or processing, and (3) an item that has passed through a chain of commercial distribution before ultimate use or consumption. Black’s Law dictionary goes on to further define a defective product as “a product that is unreasonably dangerous for normal use, as when it is not fit for its intended purpose, inadequate instructions are provided for its use, or it is inherently dangerous in its design or manufacture.
The Uniform Commercial Code in § 2-105 defines goods to include “the young of animals since they too are frequently intended for sale and may be contracted before birth.”

[s213062]

Missouri state law defines a product liability claim in statutes sections 537.760 to 537.765, the term "products liability claim" means a claim or portion of a claim in which the plaintiff seeks relief in the form of damages on a theory that the defendant is strictly liable for such damages because:
(1) The defendant, wherever situated in the chain of commerce, transferred a product in the course of his business; and
(2) The product was used in a manner reasonably anticipated; and
(3) Either or both of the following:
(a) The product was then in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use, and the plaintiff was damaged as a direct result of such defective condition as existed when the product was sold; or
(b) The product was then unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use without knowledge of its characteristics, and the plaintiff was damaged as a direct result of the product being sold without an adequate warning.
The above statue is a strict liability statute in Missouri. Not all courts agree that animals are products for strict liability purposes. Missouri adopted the Second Restatement of Torts, § 402A in Keener v. Dayton Electric Mfg. Co., Section 402A provides:
Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer
(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if
(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.
(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although
(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and
(b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.
In Latham v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the court answered the question of whether a parrot was a product for purposes of § 402A. The court held “due to their mutability and their tendency to be affected by the purchaser, animals should not be products under § 402A as a matter of law.” I disagree with this court’s ruling because a plaintiff can meet the burden of proving the product was defective when it left the seller’s hands. To not provide the plaintiff with this remedy allows all sellers engaged in the business of selling animals to sell diseased animals without any liability. The court should have at least provided the plaintiff with a rebutable presumption.
Other courts disagree with the Missouri holding in Latham v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and hold that an animal may be a product for purposes of § 402A. “There is no reason why a breeder, distributor or vendor who places a diseased animal in the stream of commerce should be less accountable for its actions than one who markets a defectively manufactured product.” In Worrell v. Sachs, the court held a puppy could be treated as a product for purposes of strict liability. In this case a diseased puppy was sold carrying a parasite that caused serious eye damage and loss of vision to a child exposed to the puppy. The court reasoned through testimony of an expert witness it can be established through the stages of disease if the animal was infected at the time of purchase. In Sease v. Taylor’s Pets, Inc. the court held a pet shop could be held strictly liable for damages caused by the sale of a rabid skunk. The court interpreted § 402A to (1) provide a defense for defendants whose animals had undergone substantial change after sale and (2) provide more certain protection to consumers injured by animals where diseased conditions might not be apparent to consumers. In my opinion these courts have made an accurate analysis in defining animals as products.
The Third Restatement of Torts, not yet adopted by Missouri, defines “product” as follows:
(a) A product is tangible personal property distributed commercially for use or consumption. Other items, such as real property and electricity, are products when the context of their distribution and use is sufficiently analogous to the distribution and use of tangible personal property that it is appropriate to apply the rules stated in this Restatement.
(b) Services, even when provided commercially, are not products.
(c) Human blood and human tissue, even when provided commercially, are not subject to the rules of this Restatement.
The Third Restatement of Torts does specifically reference animals sold in a diseased condition. However it does state, “But when a living animal is sold commercially in a diseased condition and causes harm to other property or to persons, the animal constitutes a product for purposes of this Restatement.”
Warranties and Contract Claims
As mentioned earlier animals are defined under the definition of goods in the Uniform Commercial Code. The U.C.C. provides several contract claims that could potentially be used in purchasing a defective product.
The implied warranty of merchantability in U.C.C. § 2-314 provides, “a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.” The goods must also be fit for ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. A puppy if defined as a “good” would fall under this section and would come with an implied warranty of merchantability. However, a seller may be able to exclude the implied warranty of merchantability in the purchase contract by U.C.C. § 2-316. A seller may exclude implies warranties by including expressions such as “with all faults” or “as is,” or any other language that calls the buyer’s attention to the exclusion of warranties. If such language is included the purchaser may be able to argue U.C.C. § 2-302 the contract is unconscionable. A court will use several factors to determine if a contract was unconscionable such as prevention of oppression, unfair surprise, the presence of unequal bargaining power between the parties, the allocation of risk, the commercial needs of the particular trade, and public policy reasons.

[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.

[puppypolice]

Originally Posted by s213062

Hi. I posted a warning about this breeder under the breeder forum, however I wanted to make sure our regional yorkie talkers also got the post. I live in Kansas City and 2 weeks ago purchased a puppy from www.kramhaus.com in Clever, MO (right outside of Nixa by Springfield). When we got to her house she had several of her own dogs going to the bathroom wherever they wanted, and she didn't make any effort to clean it up. She brought our puppy out of a back room (she wouldn't allow us to go back there) and the little guy smelled terrible. He had urine and feces matted in his hair. It was obvious he had never been cleaned in his whole life. I did want to leave, but I felt so bad for this little puppy, I had to buy him. In the morning we took him to the vet (he was vomitting and bleeding out of his rectum). He had Giardia (a very contagious parasite) so we had him treated and also had to have our other yorkie treated because it is so contagious. I called Diana Kram and told her what had happened. She blamed the whole thing on me, saying I had stressed the puppy by giving him a bath and that is why he had Giardia. She refused to pay any vet bills even though she sold us a very sick puppy. The puppy also has a bladder infection (we're hoping that doesn't turn out to be something more). We've spent a lot of money in vet bills and have dealt with one of the rudest people I have ever met. Please beware.

DIANA KRAM IS USING SEVERAL NAMES TO RUN HER PUPPY MILLS-KRAM HAUS, AZB KENNELS AND THE NEWEST ONE IS GRACELAND KENNELS. A HORSE DOESN'T CHANGE IT'S SPOTS OVER NIGHT AND SHE IS THE SAME BREEDER AS BEFORE. ONLY THE NAME HAS CHANGED AND SHE IS NOW OPERATING OUT OF MARSHFIELD, MO.

[Dorianyorkie]

Originally Posted by puppypolice

DIANA KRAM IS USING SEVERAL NAMES TO RUN HER PUPPY MILLS-KRAM HAUS, AZB KENNELS AND THE NEWEST ONE IS GRACELAND KENNELS. A HORSE DOESN'T CHANGE IT'S SPOTS OVER NIGHT AND SHE IS THE SAME BREEDER AS BEFORE. ONLY THE NAME HAS CHANGED AND SHE IS NOW OPERATING OUT OF MARSHFIELD, MO.

That is horrible!!! Poor, poor dogs!! Someone should report this person!

[livingdustmops]

[QUOTE=s213062;1294340]Hi all, thanks for the concern for Braxton. He is still doing great and is a loveable, sweet puppy. For those of you who would like to know more about the current breeder laws in Missouri I recently wrote a legal research paper my last year of law school covering the topic because of the experience I went through in purchasing my yorkie from Kram Haus Kennels. I welcome any comments/suggestions. I would like to present my concerns to the Missouri legislature in hope of changing the law.


I wish you all the luck in the world. Missouri is one of the worse states in regards to puppymills and I am sure backyard greeders. It takes just one person to start the ball rolling and I hope you are the "one person" to change the laws in your state.

[TammyJM]

I just looked at her site and I noticed that a lot of her dogs look sad or even scared (have their little ears back). I wish that Missouri didn't have so many puppy mills. I, too, live in Missouri so I know that we're not all like that, though.

Tammy

[ILoveOzzy]

Originally Posted by TammyJM

I just looked at her site and I noticed that a lot of her dogs look sad or even scared (have their little ears back). I wish that Missouri didn't have so many puppy mills. I, too, live in Missouri so I know that we're not all like that, though.

Tammy

I really wish you would stop with they all looks sad. One of those puppies you keep looking at is mine And I really can't say anything bad. He is the sweetest most loving puppy I've ever had. He loves people and is always happy. When I got him he was clean and had no health problems. I heard about kram haus because I already knew of 2 people here that got puppies from her and both of them didn't have a problem with her and their puppies are fine. Yes they are full Yorkies and sooooooo adorable. If all this stuff really is true it makes me sad and if she really does have other kennels I'd like to see proof send me a web site link. But in the end I couldn't imagin life without ozzy. I love my puppy! He's almost 1 year! Yay!

[TammyJM]

Originally Posted by ILoveOzzy

I really wish you would stop with they all looks sad. One of those puppies you keep looking at is mine And I really can't say anything bad. He is the sweetest most loving puppy I've ever had. He loves people and is always happy. When I got him he was clean and had no health problems. I heard about kram haus because I already knew of 2 people here that got puppies from her and both of them didn't have a problem with her and their puppies are fine. Yes they are full Yorkies and sooooooo adorable. If all this stuff really is true it makes me sad and if she really does have other kennels I'd like to see proof send me a web site link. But in the end I couldn't imagin life without ozzy. I love my puppy! He's almost 1 year! Yay!

Since it's been almost 2 months ago, I couldn't even begin to remember what these dogs look like. I have only opened that link the one and only time so not sure why you said that, "I really wish you would stop with they all looks sad. One of those puppies you keep looking at is mine.". I didn't "keep looking" at any of them...just looked at the whole website once.

Anyway, sounds like you got lucky...congrats on getting a healthy happy puppy from this kennel.

Tammy

[2Parises]

I wanted to see what the site looked like...since I believe in making up my mind for myself. Unfortunately it appears this person has such low confidence in their breeding program, the site is "under construction" and they have routed all emails to "yorkietalk.org".

Interesting that they go into hiding...

[ILoveOzzy]

Originally Posted by TammyJM

Since it's been almost 2 months ago, I couldn't even begin to remember what these dogs look like. I have only opened that link the one and only time so not sure why you said that, "I really wish you would stop with they all looks sad. One of those puppies you keep looking at is mine.". I didn't "keep looking" at any of them...just looked at the whole website once.

Anyway, sounds like you got lucky...congrats on getting a healthy happy puppy from this kennel.

Tammy

I'm sorry. I didn't mean just you. read all the comments on this thing and everyone who has looked at their pics says the same thing you did. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[BabyFidgette]

Originally Posted by 2Parises

I wanted to see what the site looked like...since I believe in making up my mind for myself. Unfortunately it appears this person has such low confidence in their breeding program, the site is "under construction" and they have routed all emails to "yorkietalk.org".

Interesting that they go into hiding...

I saw that too! I wonder if admin knows this.