In recent days, Ms. Leung, who lives in Shenzhen, Guangdong, reported to the press that she had seen cat plagues in a pet shop this year and had been dissatisfied with changing cats and had been denied a refund. The head of the pet shop indicated to the press that they were not changing at the moment, which would result in greater losses.
Ms. Leung explained that, on 26 July this year, she was following in her community of friends the publication of information on a Gingera cat at a price of $1,800, in the "love shop" in the Yonghua Xin district of Shenzhen City. On the same day, she ordered the cat from the store and paid a down payment of $800, after which the pet shop drew the cat from the foster family and arrived on 28 July.
Ms. Liang bought the Gingera cat. Interviewee for map
Ms. Leung stated that, since then, the kitty foster care had been in the pet shop and had been brought to her home on 6 August. The cat came home and played with her and her roommates in a lively manner, but soon after that anomalous situation began at around 10 p.m. on the same day.
At first, Ms. Liang thought that the cat needed to adapt to a new environment, was not too concerned and looked forward to the next day. The following day, she found out that the cat was still dripping in one night.
Ms. Leung immediately contacted the shopkeeper and replaced it with breast feeding in accordance with the methods offered by the shopkeeper. She said that the situation of the cat had worsened since then, and that she had eventually visited the hospital on the advice of the shopkeeper, where tests had shown that the cat virus was positive (commonly known as “cat plague”). That afternoon, the shopkeeper took the cat back to the shop for observation.
Subsequently, Ms. Leung was sterilized and the pet shop began to find another cat for her.
Ms. Leung stated that she had later been asked by the owner whether she would accept Napoleon, the short foot, with two doses of vaccines, subject to an additional $500. Again and again, she chose to pay $500 for the cat. However, on 20 August, before the cat was ready for delivery, the owner found out that the cat had milk and offered to keep the cat for a few more days. On August 24, she received a cat. Two days later, she discovered that the cat was a “sister” and not a “brother” who had previously communicated with the shopkeeper.
Ms. Leung said that if the cat was a “sister” she would have had a kitten, she would not be able to raise many cats at the same time. The purchase of a cat was a one-and-a-half-a-half-year-old, and now she's taken away the idea of a cat and asked the store to refund it. However, the shopkeepers say “just change” or “just half”. She has now returned the cat to her shop.
The Gingera cat has been tested and the little cat virus, commonly known as the cat plague, is positive. Interviewee for map
In a press interview with the pet shop staff, it was also surprising to learn that the first cat had been tested as a cat plague, although the cause of the disease was not clear, and that it was dealt with under the contract “with the corresponding responsibility for a small pet disease within seven days”. They also raised the issue of changing the cat, and Ms. Liang was informed in a timely manner of the breast milk, tear marks of the second cat. The clerk also stated that they did neglect the sex of the cat and that he was sorry to say that he was only cute and forgot to be a public cat.
The pet shop proposed two solutions: to return the cat and then to find the cat; or to return $500 to Ms. Liang and not to return the cat.
According to the above-mentioned shopkeeper, the days when the new cat went to the store to take care of her family had passed the Quality Assurance period, and Ms. Leung had been given a special-priced cat in her own right, and the first time the cat was changed “is equivalent to paying herself for Ms. Leung to change the cat and the refund would be more costly”.
The contract did not expressly provide for a “replacement only” and the shopkeeper claimed to have been negligent, but was informed after the incident. According to it, “the `replacement of the `no-return' peers is the case, and the full amount cannot be refunded”.
For her part, Ms. Liang believed that she had spent almost three months on the matter and hoped that the store would eventually be able to refund the cat.