13 replies to this topic

[Lewis Moon]

I read an interesting post over at Terrierman's blog.

Here's a case that could ruin the AKC and end pet shop puppy sales forever.

A woman who can best be described as a poorly informed consumer, is suing the "Raising Rover" pet store in Manhattan because the Brussels Griffon she bought there began whimpering and limping in pain at the age of four or five months.

Terrierman

[sluj]

Interesting way to construct an argument:

The lawyer for Elena Zakharova, Umka's owner, argues that "Pets must be recognized as living souls, not inanimate property," and that under New York State's Uniform Commercial Code, a buyer should be able to return a dog at any time up to four years later provided it can be show to be a "defective product."

[Lewis Moon]

Interesting way to construct an argument:

I'm not sure that "living soul" and "defective product" aren't mutually exclusive.

[Pearse]

I'm not sure that "living soul" and "defective product" aren't mutually exclusive.

My thoughts exactly.

Also, define "defective" when it comes to a dog. Is a dog that won't play fetch defective? Is a dog that takes longer than x weeks to be house trained defective (as opposed to the human living souls co-occupying the same living space as the dog-person being defective)?

How about simply - no dogs sold in pet stores. That alone would put a good number of puppy mills out of business. Some of the bigger chains (Petco) have already gone this route (although they still sell fish, rodents, reptiles, and birds).

[concrete]

I saw this on the news and my impression was that the lawyer was trying to sue in the dogs name not the owners. That is why she is trying to get the dog declared a living soul. That would I think open a five gallon bucket of worms.

Kevin

[Liz P]

If that happens, no one will breed dogs for fear of being taken to court if the pups don't turn out perfect.

[Sue R]

How about suing the purchaser for being an ignorant consumer? She didn't do her homework or she would have found that buying from pet stores was not responsible purchasing, that pet stores are not suppliers of quality-bred pups, and so on?

I get awfully tired of the mantra, "But it's not *my* fault!"

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

Some may inadvertently confuse several questions:

1. Are those who deliberately or recklessly breed for genetically defective dog responsible when misinformed consumers buy them and they are, in fact,defective?

2. Are those who breed carefully responsible for dogs that may develop unpredictable defects later?

3. As Americans, do we have the right to do anything we wish to with our animals?

One and two are fairly easy to decide in a court of law. Number three is fodder for those with time on their hands.

Donald McCaig

[Smalahundur]

Dear Doggers,

Some may inadvertently confuse several questions:

1. Are those who deliberately or recklessly breed for genetically defective dog responsible when misinformed consumers buy them and they are, in fact,defective?

2. Are those who breed carefully responsible for dogs that may develop unpredictable defects later?

3. As Americans, do we have the right to do anything we wish to with our animals?

One and two are fairly easy to decide in a court of law. Number three is fodder for those with time on their hands.

Donald McCaig

Oh, I think 1 and 2 are also difficult enough. The showring breeders for instance consider themselves very careful breeders (and with them sadly the majority of the dog world).
And as for 3, is it really a question weather "Americans" ("humans" might have been a better choice) can do "anything they wish with/to their animals"? I sure hope not. Animal protection laws and all that.

[geonni banner]

If that happens, no one will breed dogs for fear of being taken to court if the pups don't turn out perfect.

Unless the puppy purchaser signs a disclaimer or limited warrantee.

[terrecar]

It might be tough to define 'defective' within the context of a living animal but it's a helluva' lot more difficult to define 'soul' in any context. Interesting choice of a word. Wonder what happens if the judge is a materialist.

[Smalahundur]

Agreed, "soul" is a clumsy choice of words, not only if the judge is a materialist, a lot of religious people regard human beings as the only ones with a soul.

[terrecar]

Agreed, "soul" is a clumsy choice of words, not only if the judge is a materialist, a lot of religious people regard human beings as the only ones with a soul.

Very good point re: the religious person's point of view.

As a theist you'd think I'd have mentioned that. But as a skeptic, I guess it didn't occur to me.

(I won't go off on yet another tangent explaining why that doesn't defy the law of non-contradiction.)

In any case, I think Mr. McCaig identified the relevant questions in a more succinct way than I ever could.

[DeltaBluez Tess]

Depends on your and the other person definition of "defective"