REGARDING PET STORE Suing Buyer

[red98vett]

I recently read a thread here where someone said a Pet Store sued a Buyer and won over posting on the net - (See Yorkietalk Rules Thread)

IF THIS IS THE RECENT SINGAPORE News that the yorkietalk member spoke of - it didn't happen here in the states -

I could be mistaken and misread her post - but I believe if a Pet Store is sued in our country - the BUYER would win - we have too many people against buying puppies in Pet Stores and I would hope a jury would side with the buyer not the seller.

The Article is here.
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.'

[StewiesMom]

I really had no idea what that was about. Thanks for posting the article.

From the article, it sounds like the buyer did buy a sick puppy, but didn't take proper care of it when he knew and let it collapse.

Its a shame that $20,000 in lawyer had to be spent by both parties to settle it "amicably".

[red98vett]

I know - that was a sad article.

I just hoped that no one thought they couldn't post about bad pet stores and such on the net - this WAS in Singapore and there are different views there. The whole story WAS sad though. I have a feeling it happens often here too - Not all people should be pet owners - but Pet Stores DO need to be stopped and talking about them on the net is a great way to help others.

[fasteddie]

In these type of cases, we just never know who is to blame, if anyone at all. Not all diseases or problems are always correctly diagnosed or found out. It would be nice if everyone sold a puppy with some kind of health guarantee. But yes, I agree, pet stores need to be stopped, at least ones selling dogs and cats.

[SoCalyorkiLvr]

Yes, under the laws in our country, the pet Store COULD win if the buyer LIED about the facts and published them which is what happened in this case in Singapore! It is called Defamation and it is actionable here.