The law tries to cope with internet puppies
By Christie Keith
July 9, 2007
Want a new toaster, DVD, book, or pair of shoes? Buy it on the web. No questions asked as long as you have a valid credit card.
And by the way, if you want a puppy or kitten, it’s just that easy, too.
A New Jersey court is getting set to rule, however, if a couple who live in that state and bought a puppy over the Internet from a company in Pennsylvania can sue under New Jersey’s stricter consumer protection laws. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
The couple bought the crossbreed of a Labrador retriever and a standard or miniature poodle in November. It died within a week of their paying $530 for the animal at the Stoltzfuses’ Peach Bottom kennel.
The Ostranders sued, alleging the kennel violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and common law fraud by selling a diseased and dying dog.
The Stoltzfuses denied the allegations and countersued the New Jersey couple, saying Lewis Ostrander defamed them in an Internet blog and in news interviews.
The kennel owners did not appear in court yesterday. The Ostranders, who sat in the gallery front row, said they were pleased to have the matter finally before a judge.
“I think it’s important that people hear as much about this case as possible,” Lewis Ostrander said.
The Ostranders contend, in court filings, that the Stoltzfuses produced health certificates that allegedly were signed by a veterinarian indicating that the 7-week-old puppy was in good health and had completed scheduled vaccinations and worming.
Meguerian said in court yesterday that it appeared the health documentation had been forged with the pre-printed signature of a veterinarian.
The Ostranders said that almost immediately upon purchasing the puppy, the animal began to vomit, have diarrhea, and exhibit lethargy – symptoms they said the kennel called normal signs of adjustment for the dog.
After the puppy became even sicker, the Ostranders took her to a veterinarian who determined that she was terminally ill with canine parvovirus. The couple spent more than $4,300 on the puppy and it died within a week, Lewis Ostrander said.
Previously operating under the kennel name Puppy Love, the Stoltzfuses have been the subject of numerous consumer complaints and government scrutiny dating to the 1980s. The volume of complaints against the Stoltzfuses regarding sick dogs purchased at their kennel led to enactment of 1996 Pennsylvania legislation known as the “puppy lemon law.”
Full story here.
we have a puppy lemon law here also.
i wonder how old the pup was when shipped? don’t they have to be 8wks to cross state lines? hopefully the other complaints/history will help to decide they can be sued. i’m not a big lawsuit person, but if this can help hold these puppy sellers accountable, i say bring it on!
Comment by straybaby — July 9, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
these people have a bad reputation under their old kennel name Puppy Love for selling sick puppies.They should have been shut down a long time ago . They turn to selling puppys on the internet,and nothing has changed they are still selling sick puppies. I hope the judge rules they can be held accountable in New Jersey as they advertised there via the inter net.
Comment by thomas — July 9, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
I’m sorry, I feel sorry for the poor puppy but I can’t muster much sympathy for the Ostranders. If they bought from a kennel with that kind of reputation, they must have done little or no research before they plunked down their credit card. And they believed vomiting and diarrhea in a puppy are normal?? The phrase “Caveat Emptor” comes to mind.
Incidentally, I bet a shelter closer to home could have provided a “labradoodle” or “poodrador” or whatever kind of mixed breed dog they’d be happy with, for a lot less money.
Comment by Diane — July 9, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
Lots of well-meaning people don’t realize—until they get burned like this—that they _need_ to do research to buy a puppy. And if you don’t know any better, “commercial kennel” actually sounds better than “hobby breeder.”
As for the vomiting, etc.: obviously they questioned it immediately; that’s how the millers got the chance to tell them it was “normal adjustment.” Initially, they believed the people they’d bought the puppy from.
They figured out that that was a mistake. They took the pup to a vet, and spent a substantial amount on its care, trying to save it.
And if those who get suckered by puppy millers can’t sue them, then who has standing to sue? Should the puppy millers get off the hook because we in our superior wisdom sneer at the gullibility of the victims of their deceit?
Comment by Lis — July 10, 2007 @ 7:25 am
I do feel sorry for the Ostranders. I think of all the times I’ve looked at the back of Cat Fancy and seen the ads for ‘kittens raised loveingly in home” or web site featuring beautiful cats - how can you know what’s really going on.
What galls me is that PA passed a law specifically because of this breeder and they’re still in business?
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 10, 2007 @ 10:26 am
The judge has ruled!
The Motion for Summary Judgement has been DISMISSED and the trial WILL continue in the Garden State!!
Details at nppmwatch.com on the homepage under ‘NEWS.’
Comment by North Penn Puppy Mill Watch (NPPMWATCH) — July 10, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
Actually, you’re right, I hadn’t thought of it that way. Just out of curiosity last night, I checked the website of some of those chains that sell puppies…they’re pretty convincing.
Comment by Diane — July 10, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Lis- I read the original articles on this case, some months ago. The Ostranders bought the dog to be their ‘practice child.’ Once it became ill, with vomiting and bloody diarrhea, they waited THREE DAYS to take it to the vet. They did not have the puppy shipped, they picked it out in person, and saw the conditions of the kennel. Yes, they spent a lot of money trying to save the puppy and yes, that kennel NEEDS to be shut down, BUT these people need to do some serious thinking before getting another dog, much less have a child. I have known more than one person who spent a ton of money on a pet because they felt guilty for not taking it to the vet sooner. They don’t get my sympathy, either.
Comment by Nightmare — July 11, 2007 @ 8:39 am
I rescued a pup on Saturday. I was told by the organization she was in good health. They said she may have been exposed to kennel cough but she had been treated. By Tuesday we were in the Doggy ER with double pneumonia. Turns out she had not been treated. She is getting better but her bills will be in the thousands. This couple were new to dogs. How could they know the dog was not just having “adjustment problems” as the breeder said. As for a “practice child” although few people are aware they are doing it, we have a tendency to assess out partners parenting skills before reproducing. Does it matter any way? The breeder committed a number of crimes including fraud. These places should be shut down. But to imply that one is assured a healthy dog from a pound or a rescue organization is way off base. Good luck to the Ostranders.
Comment by My Pup too — July 13, 2007 @ 4:37 am