grievor, the owner of a puppy, euthanized 15 days after the purchase has attacked the breeder in court. He lost.

You don’t get necessarily the cancellation of the sale of a puppy if the animal proves to be sick. It is necessary to be able to prove that the disease existed at the date of the delivery of the dog by the seller, said the Court of cassation in a judgment of 23 January 2019*.

The mishap happened to an individual whose puppy fell ill (suffering from parvovirus) ten days after the purchase from a breeder, on the occasion of a show kennel, and that had to be euthanized fifteen days later.

the new owner argued that the seller had not delivered the object agreed upon. In the sale, the buyer has the obligation to pay, but the seller has, according to the code of the consumption, the one to deliver an object conforms to what was proposed or what is normally expected.

Your support is essential. Subscribe for $ 1 support Us

READ AS >> Well buy a dog breed: tips, formalities, papers…

A justice of the proximity of Towers, based on this principle, was found march 14, 2017 as the sick puppy was not consistent with what was expected, and that the seller had to refund the sale price, the veterinary fees and pay damages to his client for his pain and suffering.

The judge was wrong, according to the supreme Court. To condemn the seller, it would have required that the buyer proves the existence of the disease at the time of purchase, at least by making presumptions. If the disease was not appeared at that moment, we can not blame the seller having delivered a sick dog, not in accordance with what was expected, and bear the costs.

The problem would have been the same if the buyer had relied on a secret vice: he would have had to prove that the defect existed at the time of purchase.

Read our complete file

Your Budget

Fuels : why pump prices have not decreased a lot, Fruits, vegetables, products of first necessity… runaway Inflation in the hypermarkets child Care, gas, drones… What changes the 1 may 2020 for your budget

* Cass. Civ 1, 23.1.2019, P 17-19.952