The People's Court Season 24 Episode 44 Selling a defective dog

In this episode of The People's Court, a plaintiff named Sarah sues the defendant, a breeder named Mark, for selling her a defective dog. According to Sarah, she purchased a puppy from Mark's kennel for $2,500, but shortly after bringing it home, it became sick and was diagnosed with a congenital heart defect. Sarah claims that Mark should have disclosed the dog's medical condition before selling it to her, and is seeking a refund.

Mark denies any wrongdoing, and argues that he had no knowledge of the dog's condition at the time of sale. He also claims that he provided Sarah with all necessary medical records and advice, and that she failed to follow his recommendations for proper care. Mark further argues that he is not responsible for any genetic defects that may have occurred after the puppy left his kennel.

The case turns on the question of whether Mark had a duty to disclose the dog's medical condition to Sarah, and whether Sarah was fully informed about the risks of buying from a breeder. The judge hears testimony from both parties, as well as from a veterinary expert on congenital heart defects in dogs. The expert witness explains that while these conditions can sometimes be difficult to detect, responsible breeders should perform certain health screenings and disclose any known-related medical issues to buyers.

The judge also reviews the written contract that Sarah signed with Mark when purchasing the dog. The contract contains a waiver of liability clause, which states that the buyer assumes all risks associated with the purchase, and that the seller disclaims any warranties or guarantees related to the dog's health or temperament. Sarah argues that she did not fully understand the legal implications of the clause, and that it should not absolve Mark of responsibility for selling a sick dog.

Ultimately, the judge decides in favor of Sarah, ruling that Mark breached his duty to disclose the dog's medical condition and that the waiver of liability clause is unenforceable. The judge orders Mark to refund Sarah the full purchase price, as well as an additional amount to cover the dog's veterinary bills. The outcome of the case highlights the importance of transparency and honesty in pet breeding, as well as the potential pitfalls of signing legal contracts without fully understanding their terms.