There's a lot of friends who like dogs. They're on the air. Last November, Ms. Lee saw a baby dog in the live room of the pet store, attracted by a cute look and bought it at $998.
The pet shop promised that the dog had completed three doses of vaccine and had been dewormed twice, and had a healthy package for a month, and if the dog had died within a month, one would have been paid.
At the same time, the pet shop claims that a quarantine certificate is issued prior to shipment and that dogs are checked for infectious diseases such as microviruses and canine plagues.
However, the day Ms. Lee received the dog, she found something wrong. When the dog didn't eat, Ms. Lee contacted the pet shop, claiming that the dog might have a cold, and directed Ms. Lee to feed the dog.
During the same night, the dog was still taking his medication, and Ms. Lee took him to the pet hospital to examine him and was told that the pomegranate had a coronary virus, an eardrum, etc.
Over the next two days, Ms. Lee continued to treat pups at the pet hospital, paying $550 for medicine. On 12 November 2022, she tested the dog, found a small virus and informed the pet shop that communication had not been successful. In the early hours of 13 November 2022, the dog died.
After communication between Ms. Lee and the pet shop on compensation was unsuccessful, the case was brought before the Song Jiang Court.
The pet shop argued that the small virus could have been infected by Ms. Lee when she took the dog to hospital, so they would only be willing to refund the dog and the dog food, not to accept medical fees and triple liability.
The pet shop staff said in court: “I told her at first not to go to the pet hospital, and we taught her to treat and cure us. She insisted on going to the pet hospital, so we didn't pay for it."
After hearing, the court found that the pet shop had not produced a quarantine certificate for the dog in question and that the relevant immunisation certificate was not recorded, and that the pet shop was therefore being sold in bad faith and fraudulently. Ms. Lee claimed that the contract between the parties had been cancelled on the grounds of fraud and that compensation for the triple purchase of the dog was sufficient. The cost of testing and treatment is due to the fact that the dog delivered by the pet shop is not in the prescribed state of health and should be borne by the pet shop. Ms. Lee ' s payment for the dog food was a reasonable economic loss due to the acts of the pet shop, which should have been refunded, but Ms. Lee ' s claim for triple compensation for the dog food was unfounded and not supported.
“The pet store promised to quarantine the dog prior to transport, giving him a quarantine certificate, but he failed to provide it to the court.”
Eventually, the court decided to revoke the agreement between the two parties for the sale of the pets; the pet shop refunded Ms. Lee ' s dog purchase, dog food, medical expenses, and compensation for the triple purchase of the dog totalling more than $5,000.