Buyer rights in regard to dogs

[LouEllie75]

Hi, wondering if anyone has any advice on our situation. For months now we’ve been trying to get to the bottom of unexplained, intermittent lameness/reluctance to exercise in our beautiful 15 month old Lab. X-rays, CT’s and blood tests later (only some of which we could claim back for on her insurance policy), she’s been found to have inherited the recessive gene from each of her parents which causes Centronuclear Myopathy, and so is “affected” by the condition. I received the news from the orthopaedic vet we’ve been referred to last week following her genetic testing (blood test).

Now, her mum was NOT DNA tested, which we knew and understood. Her dad however is certified “hereditary clear” of CNM based on tests done on each of his parents which came back clear for the recessive gene. As a puppy needs to receive this gene from both parents in order to be affected by the condition, this should be an impossible situation we find ourselves in.

Further digging on the Kennel Club website reveals another puppy (our dogs half sibling), sired by this dog, who is also affected so regardless of his parents test results he is not “hereditary clear” but actually a carrier.

I will be contacting both breeders next week to inform them of this information and whilst at the moment I’m not sure I want to pursue any kind of legal claim - we have spent £1800 on a dog with a potentially life limiting condition, plus the £1000’s on her diagnosis which we’re partially out of pocket for. And in terms of her insurance policy, presumably this goes sky high next time we renew (thank goodness I did it the other week!), or she’s simply uninsurable.

Just wondering, if any legal minded people out there, do we potentially have a claim here? She’s our beloved family pet, and that doesn’t change, but I feel aggrieved at how much money we’ve spent on something that really should not be happening.

I should also say, all parties are in England. Thank you x

Pets are treated as goods for the purposes of consumer protection legislation. Your rights depend on whether the breeders were business sellers or private sellers.

If they were business sellers, the puppy must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. These requirements are clearly designed for other types of goods. Defining whether a puppy is of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose comes down to what it would have been reasonable for the seller to have known.

If they were private sellers, they were required to accurately describe the puppy and not misrepresent it (e.g. by saying it has been reared in a family home when it has actually been on a puppy farm).

You refer to "both breeders". It isn't clear whether you were sold the puppy by the owner of the mother, the owner of the father or both of them acting together.

You knew the mother hadn't been DNA tested. However, the father was certified "hereditary clear". If the certification was not genuine, you have a case as they have misrepresented the puppy. However, if the certification was genuine, to make a case you would need to show that the breeder who sold you the puppy was aware that the father had sired a puppy with CNM and was therefore aware that the certification was incorrect. That would be difficult to prove. So, assuming the certification was genuine, I don't think you have a case.

It is possible for this gene anomaly (not sure that is exactly the right word ) to spontaneously happen so an offspring of two parents who aren’t carriers can themselves be a carrier. So negative carrier tests for your puppy’s grandparents doesn’t mean they your puppy’s father isn’t a carrier.

Hi, thanks for your messages. We bought her direct from the mum's owners , who had copies of the sire's health check paperwork. Yes, I realise in the cold light of day this could be down to incorrect testing (these DNA tests were done over 10 years ago), and no we cannot prove her dad's owners knowingly put him out to stud as a carrier of this condition. He has fathered many many litters so I shudder to think how many faulty gene carriers are now out there based on an incorrect test result, but guess this is the problem with such things.
It all just feels VERY unlucky for her given this is a relatively rare condition and his paperwork suggested this was never something we should have had to worry about.

As for gene anomaly, the Kennel Club allow the status of "hereditary clear" for 2 generations based on these results (apparently chances are vanishingly small that there would be a further mutation of that specific gene). Two clear dogs really shouldn't produce a carrier dog, so it must have been the DNA test result that was wrong. Again, it just seems like very bad luck.

Thanks again :)

"chances are vanishingly small that there would be a further mutation of that specific gene"

I think that is where the problem lies. Vanishingly small does not mean impossible. You have been incredibly, incredibly unlucky but I doubt there is anything you can now do about it.

When you get involved in the world of dog breeding you aren't long in finding put half the parents aren't the ones named on the papers. Sadly there will be no comeback and they'll just keep breeding. I am nit and never would breed. My MIL is and sadly I've seen much of this island is a deep rooted problem within KC.

OP, did you purchase your dog from a family with a bitch (a backyard breeder) or a proper breeder, which would usually involve signing a contract?
I ask because the contract would provide some clues. Usually ethical breeders have guarantees on genetical issues such as the ones your dog have. A backyard breeder wouldn't have such a contract.
As for incorrect genetic testing, that can definitely happen. Embark is a fantastic testing service in the US... except in the last two weeks, a group of very serious breeders I follow found out that for one specific gene, Embark was throwing out false negatives.
As a biologist, I also don't particularly like like 'clear by parentage' definitions. Spontaneous mutations are rare, yes, but they happen. All mutations were once spontaneous.

Have you contacted the breeder?

In my experience you could have a case against the breeder but they will counter and offer you a full refund of costs if you return the dog (which they will probably PTS).

You won’t do this as understandably you have a bond with your puppy, but this way the breeders can argue in court that they have offered a reasonable solution.

Hi,
Yes - mum is a family pet and we understood an element of caveat emptor when buying her (although we do have an informal contract, which was mostly that we would return her rather than selling her on if we decided we didn't want her anymore!).

Sire is a bona fide, fully health checked and very popular stud dog (although now retired). He has been physically checked and cleared of numerous conditions (EIPC, PRA etc) - the one condition that the KC allow "hereditary clear" status for is the one he is a carrier for! Based on his supposed genetic status, it did not cross our minds that we could end up with a dog with one of these conditions. So a huge and painful lesson learned here.

I have contacted her mum's owners - and to be fair, they are devasted and horrifed. I am waiting for the vet to send me the paper work confirming our dogs "affected" status before I contact the sire's owners... mum's owners are also planning to contact them.

My gut feel, certainly on mum's side, is this a complete surprise to them - no, they did not test their bitch, but they did choose (what they thought was) wisely in selecting a mate for her. We have been in contact with them throughout the pregnancy, when the pups were born and ever since, and I have never felt that anything was "off". Obviously I cannot comment on sire's owners, as we never met them - but they have multiple 5 star reviews on Google so are by no means "backyard".

I feel we have just suffered terrible bad luck here. It must be a case of false negative test results.... although how this has only come to light at the very end of his 10 year career, who can say. We certainly don't have the energy for a court case given the unknowns - and as you say, they'd just offer to take her back , which is not happening. Its just a terrible shame for her.