JulesP Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Naming and shaming would be considered slander And the truth is a statutory defence to a defamation case, so if a vet (qualified opinion) tells the owner that their pup has health defect, publishing the breeders name of the defective pup is not defamation unless the breeder didn't supply the pup or the pup isn't defective :) Actually the breeder can still take the buyer to court. It is then up to the buyer to prove that it is true. The breeder can also take Troy to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizT Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 It really can be a tricky situation. It would probably have to be looked at as a case by case situation. Eg. If you bought a bitch for the purpose of breeding and showing and the puppy did not come up to stcratch as a show dog that is not the breeders fault. If you bought the bitch to bred and she turns out unable to conceive or repeatedly looses pups that also is not the breeders fault is it? A puppy that develops a skin condition after the one to two week period in which the new owner has been asked to have their vet check the health of the puppy might not be the fault of the breeder either. It would depend on the timeline. If I sent a perfectly healthy puppy off to a new home and it developed a skin conditon the first thing I would check is the state of it's siblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Squinter- what has happened now? I hope that things worked out without heartache , and would love an update . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancinbcs Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Naming and shaming would be considered slander And the truth is a statutory defence to a defamation case, so if a vet (qualified opinion) tells the owner that their pup has health defect, publishing the breeders name of the defective pup is not defamation unless the breeder didn't supply the pup or the pup isn't defective :) Actually the breeder can still take the buyer to court. It is then up to the buyer to prove that it is true. The breeder can also take Troy to court. IF the buyer had the papers and had transferred them into their name, there is nothing to stop them printing that "my dog Prefix xxxxxxx xxxxxx, has been diagnosed with generalised demodex". That is a statement of fact about a dog they own outright, it isn't slander or defamation, so long as they make no personal comments about the breeder. The problem here is that the dog is still in the breeder's name until those papers are supplied and transferred. They technically don't even own the dog outright yet, so can say nothing public about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulesP Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Naming and shaming would be considered slander And the truth is a statutory defence to a defamation case, so if a vet (qualified opinion) tells the owner that their pup has health defect, publishing the breeders name of the defective pup is not defamation unless the breeder didn't supply the pup or the pup isn't defective :) Actually the breeder can still take the buyer to court. It is then up to the buyer to prove that it is true. The breeder can also take Troy to court. IF the buyer had the papers and had transferred them into their name, there is nothing to stop them printing that "my dog Prefix xxxxxxx xxxxxx, has been diagnosed with generalised demodex". That is a statement of fact about a dog they own outright, it isn't slander or defamation, so long as they make no personal comments about the breeder. The problem here is that the dog is still in the breeder's name until those papers are supplied and transferred. They technically don't even own the dog outright yet, so can say nothing public about it. And you are happy to pay for legal representation for Troy and the OP if there is a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Naming and shaming would be considered slander And the truth is a statutory defence to a defamation case, so if a vet (qualified opinion) tells the owner that their pup has health defect, publishing the breeders name of the defective pup is not defamation unless the breeder didn't supply the pup or the pup isn't defective :) Actually the breeder can still take the buyer to court. It is then up to the buyer to prove that it is true. The breeder can also take Troy to court. Defamation/libel suits are the least successful and is a massively expensive exercise for the complainant. Once a statutory defence is filed in response to the complaint, no lawyers will take on a case like that which will last 30 seconds in court and the complainant gets the defendants costs ordered against them........most defamation/libel cases are resolved out of court.........you can actually publish a retraction also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 It really can be a tricky situation. It would probably have to be looked at as a case by case situation. Eg. If you bought a bitch for the purpose of breeding and showing and the puppy did not come up to stcratch as a show dog that is not the breeders fault. If you bought the bitch to bred and she turns out unable to conceive or repeatedly looses pups that also is not the breeders fault is it? A puppy that develops a skin condition after the one to two week period in which the new owner has been asked to have their vet check the health of the puppy might not be the fault of the breeder either. It would depend on the timeline. If I sent a perfectly healthy puppy off to a new home and it developed a skin conditon the first thing I would check is the state of it's siblings. If the cost of the puppy was higher than one from the litter not considered a breeding prospect, the cost difference is most definitely arguable if the puppy didn't turn out. It's not just bad luck that a breeder keeps a fist full of money for supplying a dud priced as a breeding show prospect??. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancinbcs Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Naming and shaming would be considered slander And the truth is a statutory defence to a defamation case, so if a vet (qualified opinion) tells the owner that their pup has health defect, publishing the breeders name of the defective pup is not defamation unless the breeder didn't supply the pup or the pup isn't defective :) Actually the breeder can still take the buyer to court. It is then up to the buyer to prove that it is true. The breeder can also take Troy to court. IF the buyer had the papers and had transferred them into their name, there is nothing to stop them printing that "my dog Prefix xxxxxxx xxxxxx, has been diagnosed with generalised demodex". That is a statement of fact about a dog they own outright, it isn't slander or defamation, so long as they make no personal comments about the breeder. The problem here is that the dog is still in the breeder's name until those papers are supplied and transferred. They technically don't even own the dog outright yet, so can say nothing public about it. And you are happy to pay for legal representation for Troy and the OP if there is a problem? No because the buyer can't make any statement if they don't own the dog outright. When I first suggested name and shame I was assuming the dog was registered in their name but it isn't, so that isn't an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizT Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) It really can be a tricky situation. It would probably have to be looked at as a case by case situation. Eg. If you bought a bitch for the purpose of breeding and showing and the puppy did not come up to stcratch as a show dog that is not the breeders fault. If you bought the bitch to bred and she turns out unable to conceive or repeatedly looses pups that also is not the breeders fault is it? A puppy that develops a skin condition after the one to two week period in which the new owner has been asked to have their vet check the health of the puppy might not be the fault of the breeder either. It would depend on the timeline. If I sent a perfectly healthy puppy off to a new home and it developed a skin conditon the first thing I would check is the state of it's siblings. If the cost of the puppy was higher than one from the litter not considered a breeding prospect, the cost difference is most definitely arguable if the puppy didn't turn out. It's not just bad luck that a breeder keeps a fist full of money for supplying a dud priced as a breeding show prospect??. True. But whether or not the pup was in fact a higher price than it's sibling may not be information that is easily obtainable. Edited July 1, 2012 by LizT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) It really can be a tricky situation. It would probably have to be looked at as a case by case situation. Eg. If you bought a bitch for the purpose of breeding and showing and the puppy did not come up to stcratch as a show dog that is not the breeders fault. If you bought the bitch to bred and she turns out unable to conceive or repeatedly looses pups that also is not the breeders fault is it? A puppy that develops a skin condition after the one to two week period in which the new owner has been asked to have their vet check the health of the puppy might not be the fault of the breeder either. It would depend on the timeline. If I sent a perfectly healthy puppy off to a new home and it developed a skin conditon the first thing I would check is the state of it's siblings. If the cost of the puppy was higher than one from the litter not considered a breeding prospect, the cost difference is most definitely arguable if the puppy didn't turn out. It's not just bad luck that a breeder keeps a fist full of money for supplying a dud priced as a breeding show prospect??. True. But whether or not the pup was in fact a higher price than it's sibling may not be information that is easily obtainable. Yes, that could be a problem. Dogs are considered as goods so if it was well established that the pup was purchased for breeding/show and wasn't up to the standard in a small claims tribunal, I think the buyer would win that and the breeder would have to take the pup back and provide a refund or supply an appropriate replacement. I don't think because a puppy is a creation of nature and is not a handcrafted manufacture provides an out for the seller/breeder on the basis of an act of nature to be exempt from responsibility or obligation?? Edited July 2, 2012 by m-sass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordogs Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 JMHO ~ small claims or mediation will not work if people cannot or will not come to an agreement on their own. All small claims do is get people together to talk and they offer alternate ways to overcome their problem. Does very little actually. Been there done that. Small claims do not care only wanting some resolution in one session. Extremely stressful for a person who has never previously had dealing with the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missymoo Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 This sounds like the same breeder from the other blue staffy thread....(taking a guess at breed and colour here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Couple of issues. Firstly chances are you will beat the demodex but what you see is a symptom of an immune system issue. Other immune related issues may show throughout its life. There is no way this dog should be used for breeding and anyone advising you that its good to go for that purpose ever is in desperate need of some quick education. I advise you to post the pedigree of the pup explaining nothing more than the facts . That you purchased the dog and that in the best interests of the breed you are sharing the knowledge that it has demodex. This is stuff that every breeder of that breed could use to work toward health issues being eliminated .If it had won a championship you wouldnt hesitate to share its pedigree so people could use that as something to be aware of in selecting breeding dogs - why would you not do the same for health issues. You dont have to make public the breeder's reaction or similar but until people start sharing this stuff how on earth can we ever take it into account when we profile a pedigree. In the meantime if you send the MDBA a copy of the pedigree and the vet notes the health notes will be added to our pedigree data base so that its recorded on future pedigrees for people to be able to see in the hope of breeding and owning healthier dogs. You dont need to be an MDBA member to send us this and have it recorded and its free. I would also like to have the name and prefix of the breeder via PM for future reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Thread is 6 months old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tlc Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Thread is 6 months old. I was just about to type the same thing, wonder what ever happened to this pup? The OP hasn't been back since July. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loving my Oldies Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I started reading this, noted the date and thought: hmmm few things might be going on here. Generous Thought: The person who resurrected the thread didn't see the date - which does happen. :D Not So Generous Thought: The person who resurrected the thread was trawling through old threads looking for something interesting and wanted to stir. Generous Thought: The person who resurrected the thread was wondering what had happened to the puppy, but the text of the resurrecting post doesn't support that thought. Not So Generous Thought: The person who resurrected the thread has an axe to grind. But all that aside, it would be nice/interesting to know what happened to the puppy - hopefully all good, but doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florise Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Not So Generous Thought: The person who resurrected the thread was trawling through old threads looking for something interesting and wanted to stir. Not So Generous Thought: The person who resurrected the thread has an axe to grind. Did we really need to hear your "not so generous thoughts"? Why does the reason an old thread was posted in, generate such not so generous thoughts from you? Sometimes old threads are resurrected because they have interesting content. Do we not encourage people to search for old topics before posting new ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Not So Generous Thought: The person who resurrected the thread was trawling through old threads looking for something interesting and wanted to stir. Not So Generous Thought: The person who resurrected the thread has an axe to grind. Did we really need to hear your "not so generous thoughts"? Why does the reason an old thread was posted in, generate such not so generous thoughts from you? Sometimes old threads are resurrected because they have interesting content. Do we not encourage people to search for old topics before posting new ones? Dannys darling is the one stirring, she has made some really strange posts lately. Attention seeking I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Bloody hell I ll remember to read the date next time - but when is a thread too old to post without the analysis of motives happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missymoo Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 (edited) Actually it was me..and people who "know" me from DOL know I'm not a 'stirrer' Since I seem to have to justify myelf...I was interested after reading the thread that it DID sound like the old thread that was mentioned though this one, I was just wondering..and I was also wondering what DID happen to said pup.. FFS, not everyone has an agenda DD!!! Sorry for being interested! (Roll eyes) Edited December 23, 2012 by Missymoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now