Many parents raising pet dogs send them to the pet training base for professionals to train them in order for them to be trained. However, it was reported that after sending the dog to training, one of the feeders was transferred to the pet company, where he took the dog to court.
Mr. Zai signed a training agreement with the pet company, but after the training was completed he did not go to the pet dog, which was eventually transferred to the pet company. Mr. Zai brought the pet company before a court to seek compensation for the purchase price of the pet at $70,000. The court of first instance ordered the pet company not to reimburse the $2,000 that it had charged for training, but to pay Mr. Choi another $8,000 for training.
On 1 July 2013, Mr. Zai signed a certificate of instruction with a Shanghai-based pet supplies company Ltd., which agreed that Mr. Zai would deliver a German shepherd dog, for which the pet company would provide instruction at a cost of $400,000. The duration of the training was from 1 July 2013 to 30 July 2013. If the pet company causes the loss or death of Mr. Zai's pets during rearing for subjective reasons, the pet company shall pay financial compensation (not more than twice the cost of the training) for the purchase of the same species or the market price; after the end of the training period, Mr. Zai must take back the dog on time, at a fee of $60 per day, with the pet company informing Mr. Zai not to take back his ownership of the dog for a period of one week, and the dog shall be dealt with by the pet company without objection; Following the signing of the above-mentioned agreement, Mr. Zai handed over all his dogs to the company for training, and took out the cards to pay $2,000 for training.
On 4 August 2013, Mr. Zai went to the pet company to collect the sheepdog and found that the dog had different parts of the face from the hair elsewhere. The latter company agreed to place the dog in its place for treatment, before Mr. Zai received the dog a month later. A month later, the pet company called Mr. Choi, stating that the dog had been cured and asked Mr. Choi to come to the lead dog, but Mr. Choi asked the pet company to provide photographs before the lead dog. Since then, Mr. Choi has not received the dog. In November of the same year, the dog was transferred by the pet company.
On 2 April 2014, Mr. Zai filed an action in court for compensation of $70,000 for the purchase of dogs and refund of the training fee of $2,000.
During the original trial, Mr. Zai provided one invoice from a German shepherd dog issued by a Shanghai Trading Company Ltd. for the sum of 70,000 yuan, which he claimed was in cash.
The Court held that the letter of instruction agreement signed by the parties was a true expression of the intention of the parties that both parties should comply fully with their contractual obligations. Mr. Zai was guilty of failing to obtain the dog in time; however, when Mr. Zai did not receive the dog, the company should have performed the notification obligation under the contract before treating the dog separately, but the company did not provide evidence that it had expressly informed Mr. Zai of the delivery and was liable accordingly. The pet company ' s obligation to instruct the dog has been completed as agreed, so that the training fees paid by Mr. Zai should not be refunded, but the pet company, without informing Mr. Zai, has given the dog only to people, and it is contracted to pay up to twice the training costs, or $8,000. On this basis, the court of first instance decided to award Mr. Choi $8,000 in compensation;
Mr. Zai appealed that the disputed agreement, which was written about a pet training school, had not been registered in business and that the agreement between the parties should be null and void. The original trial was never fair and the company should return the German shepherds, otherwise compensation should be based on the invoice value provided by Mr. Choi. Accordingly, Mr. Choi requested that the original judgement be set aside, remanded or commuted in support of all his original application.
The second court held that Mr. Zai had voluntarily concluded, in consultation with the pet company, a certificate of instruction, which was complete in form and clear in content and was a genuine indication of the intent of the parties and should be valid. The court of first instance found that the facts of the dispute were clear, that the applicable law was correct and that it had not been mishandled. The judgement dismissed the appeal and upheld it.