The breeder was considered a “trader”, albeit at a “modest level” – she was registered as a breeder, but had been involved in breeding over a long period on a “sporadic basis”.
The new owner purchased the 16-month-old pedigree cat for $700.
The owner said she had not owned a cat of that breed before and did not realise, when it was delivered to her, that it was underweight.
The cat was found to be underweight, with tooth decay and weepy eyes. Photo / Stock image.
She took it for a vet check-up three days later, and was advised it was underweight, had weepy eyes, decay in its teeth, and was not in good health overall.
The vet also said the cat was not up to date with its vaccinations.
The owner told the tribunal she never received the cat’s vaccination booklet from the breeder, but the breeder said the cat was fully vaccinated.
The cat had some teeth extracted, and the vet said it would require corneal grafts.
The owner gave the cat to her daughter to look after, as she planned to try to return it to the breeder and didn’t want to become attached to it.
The tribunal heard the owner then got in touch with the breeder about the health issues, and there were discussions about returning it and obtaining a refund.
However, the owner said “communication issues” meant the cat was not able to be sent back in a “reasonable time or manner”.
After testing confirmed it had feline leukaemia virus, the vet said the cat should be euthanised.
The owner got in touch with the breeder’s vet, and they agreed to the cat being euthanised.
The breeder told the tribunal the cat did not have any dental decay that she was aware of when the cat was sold.
She said while the cat was on the “light side” it had not been, in her opinion, underweight.
However, tribunal adjudicator Arti Chand found that, on the evidence, the cat was infected with FeLV when sold to the owner.
“Further, that the cat was visibly unwell when sold,” he said.
“I accept the evidence from the vet notes in this respect, including the seriousness of the onset of FeLV, which meant that the cat had to be euthanised.”
Chand found the cat was “not of acceptable quality” when sold to the owner.
The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 allows for a right to a refund, and compensation for consequential loss, where a failure to meet a relative guarantee is of a “substantial character”.
Chand noted this was usually dependent on the goods that had been supplied being able to be returned to the supplier.
“That is, obviously, not possible here because the cat has been euthanised, and I re-affirm what I believe I have made clear above that that action was for entirely valid reasons.”
Chand found the owner was entitled to a refund for the purchase price of the cat, including delivery costs, as well as compensation for all the vet-related costs.
The breeder was ordered to pay the owner $1000.
Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.