Court denies refund for owners who adopted puppy that developed a rash
Two people in BC purchased a puppy for $3,500 but are demanding a refund because they claim the seller misrepresented the dog’s health.
Natalia Molchanova and Mikhail Molchanova purchased Kolya, an American Hairless Terrier, from Dina Osadchaya for $3,500 last August.
However, before purchasing the puppy, Natalia and Mikhail said they told Osadchaya they needed a dog without allergies and were told Kolya didn’t have any.
The day Natalia and Mikhail picked up Kolya, they noticed the puppy had a rash on his legs, but Osadchaya assured them it was from cuts after playing outside and that it would heal in time.
Four days after taking Kolya, they claim the dog developed a severe allergy on his paws.
They say Kolya’s paws were red with broken skin, he was biting his paws, and he refused to eat breakfast.
According to a Civil Right Tribunal decision Natalia and Mikhail filed, they said they returned Kolya to Osadchaya and asked for a full refund, which she denied.
The respondent, Osadchaya, insists Kolya has no allergies, is healthy, and does not believe the applicants are entitled to reimbursement.
- You might also like:
- BC man takes ex to court to battle over dog custody
- "Pet detective" job in Metro Vancouver is now accepting applications
- Woman in BC out $3K after dog breeder dies and litter of puppies stolen
According to the decision, the applicant and respondent did not have a written contract, and the tribunal member said there was little evidence about the parties’ oral agreement.
“However, I find it undisputed that the sale included a term that Kolya would be healthy and free of allergies,” the tribunal member said. “The applicants do not allege that there was any agreement about being able to return Kolya to the respondents at any time for a full refund. I find the evidence does not show the parties agreed to any specified refund terms when the respondents purchased Kolya.”
Photos provided to the tribunal showed Kolya’s paw irritation, and the tribunal member said they found the photograph showed some redness on the bottom of one of Kolya’s paws, “but I cannot tell from the photograph whether the redness is due to irritation, allergies, or something else.”
The applicants also shared videos of Kolya chewing and scratching his paws, which they claim show his ongoing allergic reaction.
However, the tribunal member insisted they did not find the video obviously showing Kolya had an ongoing allergic reaction and said the documentary evidence did not show any rash or cuts on Kolya’s legs.
The tribunal member added that they also didn’t provide expert evidence like a veterinarian, which would prove their claims about Kolya’s alleged allergies.
They did submit evidence from two veterinary animal hospitals; however, during the visits, the doctor examined the dog and found he was “apparently healthy.”
The tribunal member found Osadchaya did not misrepresent Kolya’s health and found that there was no breach of contract.
The member added that while Osadchaya offered to 75% refund to Natalia and Mikhail after returning the dog, since there was no official agreement, the applicants are not entitled to that refund.