Newly purchased pet dies of illness, hard to prove and swallow the loss.

Compiled from: Huaiyin District Court

A pet cat was purchased and died of illness about a week later. The buyer and seller disputed refund, compensation, and related matters and brought the case to court. How should the relevant legal liability be determined?

Case Review

On August 16, 2023, Yang purchased a cat of the silver gradient breed from a certain aquarium and flower shop (hereinafter referred to as the shop) for 500 yuan (it was verified that the cat had not undergone inspection and quarantine). Both parties orally agreed that if the cat had problems such as illness, a refund or exchange could be made. On August 20, Yang took the cat to a pet hospital for examination, and it was diagnosed with feline panleukopenia. On the afternoon of the same day, Yang went to the shop and informed them of the above situation, requesting a return or exchange. The shop operator was not present but promised to negotiate and handle it that evening; however, the two parties did not meet or negotiate that night. On August 21, 2023, Yang continued treatment for the cat and demanded that the shop bear the related expenses. The shop disagreed to bear them, so Yang continued treatment on her own, gradually spending a total of 2,000 yuan in medical expenses. On August 23, 2023, the cat died after treatment was ineffective. Later, a dispute arose between the two parties over the refund and compensation. Yang sued the shop in court, requesting an order to rescind the sales contract, compensation from the defendant for the cat purchase price and the cat's medical expenses totaling 2,500 yuan plus interest, and alleging fraud by the defendant, demanding that the defendant pay punitive damages of three times the cat purchase price, amounting to 1,500 yuan.

A pet store argued that the cat was healthy before it was purchased, and that any illness occurring afterward was unrelated to the store. It also claimed that after the cat became ill, it contacted the plaintiff to offer a refund, but the plaintiff refused, and that the medical expenses were excessively high. Therefore, the store only agreed to refund the purchase price of 500 yuan.

 The issue in dispute in this case is whether the defendant should bear the relevant liability for compensation.

The court, upon trial, holds that this case is a sales contract dispute. The oral sales contract at issue reflects genuine intent, does not violate mandatory or prohibitive provisions of laws and regulations, and is lawful and valid. Based on the facts ascertained, the court confirms Yang's claim that a certain store failed to inspect and quarantine the cat before sale, in violation of relevant legal provisions. Yang claims that the cat provided by the store was already ill at the time of sale, constituting a breach of contract by the store. The store does not acknowledge this but has failed to provide evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, given that the cat at issue was not inspected or quarantined, it should be legally determined that the cat was defective at the time of sale, constituting a breach of contract by the store. Yang's request to rescind the contract, obtain a refund, and claim damages is consistent with legal provisions, and the court supports it. However, the medical expenses claimed by Yang were not entirely caused by the store's breach. According to the contract between the parties, if the cat is defective, it may be returned or exchanged, which limits the damages for breach to the price of the cat. When Yang requested a return or exchange, the store merely failed to respond promptly, yet Yang immediately took the cat to a veterinarian and incurred medical expenses several times the price of the cat, in violation of the parties' agreement. Yang is also at fault for the occurrence of this loss and should bear corresponding liability. Accordingly, the court, in its discretion, determines that each party shall bear 50% of the medical expenses. Yang claims that the store engaged in fraudulent conduct and, on that basis, demands compensation of three times the purchase price. The store does not acknowledge this, and Yang has not provided effective evidence to prove it. The factual basis is insufficient, and the court does not support this claim.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the store should refund Yang the 500 yuan purchase price for the cat, compensate 1,000 yuan for the cat's medical expenses, and pay interest on the above amounts (calculated on the basis of 1,500 yuan at the one-year Loan Prime Rate for the same period from December 7, 2023 until the date of actual payment), and dismissed Yang's other claims. After the judgment was rendered, both parties accepted it and did not appeal, and the judgment has now taken legal effect.

Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

I'm ready to help translate your Chinese legal content into professional English for the Shenzhen Zhiming Law Firm website. Please provide the Chinese text you'd like me to translate.Article 563, Paragraph 1, Item 4

Under any of the following circumstances, a party may rescind the contract:

…

(4) One party delays performance of its obligations or commits other breaches such that the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved.

…

Articles 566, Paragraphs 1 and 2

After a contract is rescinded, performance of any obligations not yet performed shall be terminated; where obligations have already been performed, the parties may request restitution or take other remedial measures based on the circumstances of performance and the nature of the contract, and shall have the right to claim damages. Where a contract is rescinded due to breach, the party with the right to rescind may request the breaching party to bear liability for breach, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

Article 592

If both parties breach the contract, they shall each bear corresponding liability. If one party's breach causes losses to the other party, and the other party is at fault for the occurrence of the losses, the amount of compensation for losses may be reduced accordingly.

[4] Author's Opinion

In daily life, it is not uncommon for consumers to purchase cats and dogs at street stalls, markets, flower and bird markets, and other similar venues. However, in some cases, the cats and dogs sold have not undergone any inspection or quarantine, and their health conditions cannot be fully guaranteed. If they die of illness just a few days after being brought home, who should bear the relevant liability, and how should it be allocated? In this case, as a sales contract dispute, liability should be allocated according to the contract terms and fault in accordance with the law. Merchants selling live animals are required to obtain the corresponding business qualifications and provide the corresponding animal quarantine certificate in accordance with the Animal Epidemic Prevention Law of the People’s Republic of China; otherwise, they should bear the corresponding liability. Selling healthy pets is the merchant’s fundamental contractual obligation. If it is determined that the pet in question had problems at the time of sale, the merchant should bear liability for breach of contract, refund the purchase price, and compensate the consumer for reasonable losses. If the consumer blindly purchases from an informal pet store where the merchant has not provided an animal quarantine certificate, and the consumer’s subsequent conduct leads to the expansion of the losses caused by the breach, the consumer is also at fault to some extent and should bear the corresponding losses. As for whether fraud is constituted, it depends on whether the following are satisfied: the merchant had the intent to commit fraud; the merchant informed the consumer of false information or concealed the true situation; and the consumer made a declaration of intent based on a mistaken understanding. If the merchant knew the pet was sick but still concealed that fact and sold it, resulting in the pet’s death from illness, the consumer may, on the grounds of fraud by the merchant, demand that the merchant refund the price and pay three times the compensation in accordance with the Consumer Rights Protection Law.