Ms. Chang Sha Chung spent $2,500 to buy her pet dog, and the next day she had coughing, shrunk, and spent more than $6,000 on treatment in two months, which ultimately did not save her dog's life. When the claim was unsuccessful, Ms. Chung sued the pet shop in court. On 4 August, the People ' s Court of the Furung District of Changsha City published the contract dispute for the purchase and sale of pets.
Suspected of buying a "week dog." Consumers sued the pet shop.
On 31 August 2024, Ms. Chung purchased a Western Highland pet dog at a pet shop for 2,500 dollars. In the course of the transaction, the parties entered into an Agreement on the Purchase of Pets, which provides that no pets shall be resold except for special reasons such as deafness, blindness and congenital disability.
The following day, the dog had abnormal symptoms such as cough and diarrhoea. Ms. Chung immediately contacted the pet shop staff and under the direction of the other party bought medicine for the treatment of the dog, but the condition did not improve.
On 19 September, she took her pet dog to a specialized pet hospital, where she was diagnosed with the dog fever virus. The dog died tragically on 29 October of the same year, despite having been treated to the fullest extent possible. During this period, Ms. Chung paid a cumulative amount of $6284 for medical examinations and treatment.
The dog who had just been bought home was sick and Ms. Chung suspected that it had purchased a “week dog” and went to the pet store to negotiate compensation. After the consultations were unsuccessful, Ms. Chung filed a complaint with the People ' s Court of the Furung District of Changsha City, claiming that the pet shop should be ordered to pay compensation for its economic losses.
Court: Petty stores assume liability for default
The court found that Ms. Chung had paid for the goods under the Purchase Agreement and had legally valid legal relationships with the pet shop, which was to deliver pets that met the quality requirements of the pet industry as agreed.
In accordance with the relevant regulations of the Law of the People ' s Republic of China on Animal Vaccination, the pet shop sells pet dogs to Ms. Chung without proving that it has fulfilled its quarantine obligations, and on the second day the dog is sold with symptoms such as lewdness, which are confirmed by tests at the pet hospital to be infected with the dog fever virus.
Although it was agreed that pets would not be replaced for any special reason after they were sold, out-of-shop testing showed abnormality in the day. However, infectious diseases such as canine plague are subject to a certain incubation period, which is clearly insufficient for one day. The agreement is therefore a form clause, which excludes Ms. Chung ' s primary rights, unreasonably exempts the pet shop from its obligations, is null and void and cannot serve as a basis for exemption from liability in the pet shop, which is liable for breach of contract.
The judgement, which entered into force, entered into force, on the return of $2500 from the pet shop to Ms. Chung and the compensation of $6284 for medical expenses.