“When I returned home to take care of him for three days, the dog was vomiting and diarrhea, and I was very worried that after sending him to the pet store for treatment, he had been drugged, but in a few days the dog died.” Recently, Ms. Yang, a citizen of Nanchang, reported to the Gangnam Metropolitan Region about the “disturbing” she had encountered, but after the death of the dog, the merchants said that there was a “dog plague, small” to replace within seven days, but that the buyer had to bear the burden.
According to counsel, the sale of healthy pet dogs is an essential obligation of the seller, and a reasonable period of seven days as a quality test may be too short, without prejudice to the buyer's continued claim if the refund is not accompanied by a written “compensation” or “conciliation”.
The dog bought it home and soon became sick and was diagnosed as a dog plague.
It's a happy thing for a pet store to buy a little puppy, and it starts vomiting and diarrhea before I'm ready to take it home. On 23 June this year, Ms. Yang, a citizen, saw a bear pet dog in a cold dog shop at Cloud Fly Road, West Lake, South Chang City. " My daughter has always loved dogs, and there's a pet store downstairs. She bought a bear dog." Ms. Yang recalled that when the dog was only two months old and did not look sick, she bought it for $1,200 and then for $426 in the store, dog food, canteens, dog-friendly fungus, milk powder.
“At the time, the shopkeeper did not test the dog, did not sign the contract, nor did he provide a medical and quarantine certificate for the pet. I didn't even think about it. What Ms. Yang did not realize was that, after buying home to care for three days, the dog had vomiting and diarrhea, which left her very worried, “I consulted with the merchants, and they asked me to come to the store to take a look at the little virus, which felt like `small' symptoms, but then there were no `small' symptoms, and I neglected to take a look at the plague.”
Ms. Yang said that on 29 June, the dog had lost strength and had been rushed to a nearby pet hospital, where the diagnosis had resulted in a drip worm, and had been negotiated with the merchant, who had said that only $190 had been paid for medical treatment for seven days of “small” and “dog plagues. “The merchant said I'd get $100 in cash, and I don't want it. At that time, when it was thought that it was just a common disease, and without knowing that the dog was suffering from a `dog plague', it wrote the words `withdrawing all complaints against the cool dog family and asking for any financial compensation for any reason' at the request of the merchant.” She stressed that it would not be written if it was known that the dog had a “dog plague”.
However, on 2 July, Ms. Yang found that the treatment had not been effective and on 4 July, the dog was taken to the Jiangsybebe pet chain hospital (DPA) for a full diagnosis, confirmed as “dog plague” and died after 11 days of hospitalization.
She learned that the “dog plague” had early appetites, vomiting, fever, etc., and was also latent in that “dogs have not left the house since they were bought and have gone to noon except for medical treatment”. Ms. Yang said that there was a problem with dogs before buying them.
In seven days, there's a dog plague, a small one.
On the afternoon of July 21, the director of the pet shop said, "I'm talking about a seven-day period with a dog plague, a small one, and I can change it for you. If you suspect anything, you can also take it to the hospital for self-testing.”
"I paid 192 bucks, and I compensated her." The merchant explained that Ms. Yang ' s family itself had a dog and risked contracting the virus.
“Because the dog's diarrhea symptoms were `small' and she took them to the hospital the same day, but there was no `dog plague', and the place where I paid for it was written for sale. Nothing happens within my Quality Assurance. The buyer must have done it himself." The merchant further stated that the “dog plague” must have been a source, possibly lower immunity, or that it had gone to the hospital to examine the infection because Ms. Yang had changed her dog to two hospitals.
Where should this matter be coordinated? No clear multisectoral response
After several unsuccessful consultations, Ms. Yang communicated with the Supervisory Authority, “When the dog fell ill, I called `12315', after which the merchant withdrew $190. After his death, the dog called again `12315' and was rejected.” Ms. Yang told the journalist that she had called “12345” in follow-up to the complaint and received feedback that the agricultural sector had responded to the request to contact the Market Supervisory Authority for the coordination of the business case in question, “until now there has been no response”.
Journalists questioned the West Lake Market Supervisory Authority about the Agricultural Subdirectorate and staff said that if journalists were to be informed in the form of interviews, “authority from the District Office was required”.
In turn, the journalist called the West Lake Agricultural Rural Authority, and the staff responded: “If an interview is to be conducted, I would like to contact the District Council's Department of Publicity, and I would be able to respond clearly to your question about pet dogs, that if there were areas of competence relating to the agricultural sector, since we do not have agricultural law enforcement powers, the work is handled by the relevant units of the Municipal Agricultural Rural Directorate”.
Finally, the journalist called the Nanchang Rural and Agricultural Bureau and the staff requested information, but no response was received as of 4 p.m. on 23 July.