I am wondering why a contract wouldn't be binding in a small claims court case.
I sold a healthy puppy to a man. The puppy got diarrhea when they got home. Stress induced diarrhea is very common in puppies. It's not an ill puppy, it's a scared puppy. He called and asked my advise, I told him what to do, but he didn't do any of it. He didn't want to spend money on a vet and waited 4 days before taking the puppy in. He finally did and the pup recovered just fine. 3 weeks later he calls, the puppy had a soft movement. He wanted me to pick the puppy up, take it to a vet, get it well and return it to him. I picked up the pup and brought him home. There was nothing wrong with the puppy, except he needed a little wormer. He was happy and acting like a normal puppy. The man calls 2 days later and said he doesn't want the puppy cuz he was too mellow and wants his money back. I told him I would give his money back after the puppy was sold again, less the expense of doing so.
We had a contract that states, a puppy can be returned in 72 hours for a full refund. After that time a puppy can still be returned but no refund will be given. Unless the pup has a genetic life threatening illness and a statement from a vet stating so.
He takes me to court. He had nothing ... no proof from a vet that the pup was ill.
I lose even tho I had proof from my vet that the puppy was healthy. I had notarized letters from people I sold puppies too and others that had seen this pup. And we had a contract ... which I did have a lawyer check out to make sure it was legal and binding.
How could I lose this case ? What is the point of having a contract if a purchaser doesn't have to abide by it ? Would I be better off not having a contract at all ?
I sold a healthy puppy to a man. The puppy got diarrhea when they got home. Stress induced diarrhea is very common in puppies. It's not an ill puppy, it's a scared puppy. He called and asked my advise, I told him what to do, but he didn't do any of it. He didn't want to spend money on a vet and waited 4 days before taking the puppy in. He finally did and the pup recovered just fine. 3 weeks later he calls, the puppy had a soft movement. He wanted me to pick the puppy up, take it to a vet, get it well and return it to him. I picked up the pup and brought him home. There was nothing wrong with the puppy, except he needed a little wormer. He was happy and acting like a normal puppy. The man calls 2 days later and said he doesn't want the puppy cuz he was too mellow and wants his money back. I told him I would give his money back after the puppy was sold again, less the expense of doing so.
We had a contract that states, a puppy can be returned in 72 hours for a full refund. After that time a puppy can still be returned but no refund will be given. Unless the pup has a genetic life threatening illness and a statement from a vet stating so.
He takes me to court. He had nothing ... no proof from a vet that the pup was ill.
I lose even tho I had proof from my vet that the puppy was healthy. I had notarized letters from people I sold puppies too and others that had seen this pup. And we had a contract ... which I did have a lawyer check out to make sure it was legal and binding.
How could I lose this case ? What is the point of having a contract if a purchaser doesn't have to abide by it ? Would I be better off not having a contract at all ?
