B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has rejected a woman’s claim for compensation from a dog breeder after she decided a puppy wasn’t a good fit for her and returned it to be rehomed.
Tribunal member Peter Nyhuus said in a March 17 decision that Jessica Clark bought a Dachshund puppy from Sami Decap for $2,000.
“Soon after the purchase, [Clark] realized that she and the puppy were not a good fit.,” Nyhuus said.
“When contacting [Decap] about the puppy’s return, [Clark] said she wanted ‘what’s best for the little guy.’”
Clark claimed Decap agreed to take back the puppy for a partial refund of $1,000 and a further $500 once they found the puppy a new home.
However, Clark alleged, Decap decided to keep the puppy rather than rehome him.
Clark asked the tribunal for payment of the rehoming fee.
Nyhuus said the parties agreed on the basic facts in the case, those being that:
• In August 2023, Decap, a dog breeder, sold Clark a puppy for $2,000;
• About one week later, Clark returned the dog to the respondent for a $1,000 refund;
• Decap agreed to pay the applicant a $500 rehoming fee if they found a new home for the dog;
• Decap did not find a new home for the dog and decided to keep it; and,
• Decap did not pay the applicant the $500 rehoming fee.
Decap denied the claim saying they were not required to pay any further refund because they did not find a new home for the puppy. Nyhuus said Decap did not guarantee that they would find a new home for the puppy, they merely said they were “hoping to be able to re-post/get him adopted again.”
“I find that the parties agreed that [Decap’s] obligation to pay the $500 rehoming fee would only arise if [Decap] re-sold the puppy to another family or person,” Nyhuus said. “I infer that the parties found this arrangement to be reasonable, as both parties incurred a financial loss from the original sale and return.”
Nyhuus said if Decap was able to re-sell the puppy, the rehoming fee would ensure that both parties would benefit from the proceeds of the second sale.
Nyhuus said Decap did not provide evidence that they took efforts to rehome the puppy, but it was ultimately Clark – not Decap – who bore the burden of proving Decap did not perform the contract reasonably or honestly.
“Based on the correspondence in evidence, I do not find any indication that [Decap] acted deceitfully or that their efforts were unreasonable in the circumstances.
Nyhuus found Decap performed their duties honestly and reasonably, given the purpose of the parties’ contract.
As such, Nyhuus found Decap did not breach the duty of good faith contractual performance.
