ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered a ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ chihuahua breeder to refund a client’s payments and vet bill after the puppy died.
Tammy Lynne Mackenzie told tribunal member Amanda Binnie that Traci Fobbs agreed to refund her purchase price of $3,000 after the puppy passed a few days after the she brought it home.
She also claimed $882 in vet bills.
Fobbs said there was a two-year health guarantee, but claimed the puppy did not die as a result of any genetic issues the guarantee would cover.
Mackenzie’s son picked up the puppy on Feb. 22, 2023 when Fobbs took the puppy to an airport to give to the son.
“The puppy had been cleared to fly at this time,” Binnie said in a .
On Feb. 24, Mackenzie took the puppy to the veterinarian as it was lethargic.
“The veterinary records state the puppy had been having diarrhea the day before and was still lethargic at the veterinarian’s office,” Binnie wrote.
The vet found the puppy had hypoglycemia for which they could find no cause.
The vet gave the puppy glucose syrup and gastro medication. Mackenzie was sent home with more gastro and instructions to make sure the puppy ate.
However, they returned to the vet on March 1 as the puppy was vomiting and had diarrhea. That night, the pup became worse and they went back to the vet.
The vet recorded the puppy was very lethargic, very weak and not eating by itself. Given "the puppy's prognosis was poor," Mackenzie chose to euthanize the dog.
“Given the puppy’s serious health issues to this point, I accept this was a reasonable choice,” Binnie said.
The tribunal member said Facebook messages showed a purchase price of $3,000.
Binnie found there was an implied warranty in the parties’ contract that the puppy would be healthy for at least six months.
Binnie found that implied warranty was breached as the puppy became very ill just over a day after the purchase.
“Based on the above, I find that (Fobbs) must pay the applicant $3,000, being the purchase price of the puppy, for the breach of the implied warranty,” Binnie ruled.
Binnie noted that Fobbs argued in the dispute response that the puppy ingested marijuana or hit its head.
“The respondent specifically says these are things that ‘could have’ happened but says only the applicant smoked marijuana and told the respondent the puppy hit its head,” Binnie said. “I find the respondent has not proven these are more than speculation.”
Binnie also found veterinary expenses were directly related to the puppy’s health issues and ordered Fobbs to pay Mackenzie $882.87.
