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 within about a week. The buyer and seller disputed over refunds and compensation, taking the case to court. How should the relevant legal responsibilities be determined?

Case Review

On August 16, 2023, Yang purchased a silver gradient cat (later found to be without inspection and quarantine) from a certain aquarium and flower shop (hereinafter referred to as "the shop") for 500 yuan. The parties orally agreed that if the cat had issues such as illness, a refund or exchange could be made. On August 20, Yang took the cat to a pet hospital for examination, where it was diagnosed with feline distemper. That afternoon, Yang informed the shop of the situation and requested an exchange. The shop operator was not present but agreed to discuss it in the evening. However, the two parties did not meet or negotiate that night. On August 21, 2023, Yang continued treating the cat and demanded the shop bear the related costs. The shop refused, so Yang continued treatment independently, incurring a total of 2,000 yuan in medical expenses. On August 23, 2023, the cat died despite treatment. The parties then disputed over refunds and compensation. Yang sued the shop, requesting the court to rescind the sales contract, order the defendant to compensate for the cat purchase price and medical expenses totaling 2,500 yuan plus interest, and claim that the defendant committed fraud, demanding triple punitive damages of 1,500 yuan on the purchase price.

The shop argued that the cat was healthy before purchase, and its subsequent illness was unrelated to them. They claimed they had contacted the plaintiff for a refund after the illness but were refused, and that the medical expenses were excessive. Therefore, they only agreed to refund the 500 yuan purchase price.

　　The focus of the dispute in this case is: whether the defendant should bear relevant compensation liability?

The court found after trial that this case is a dispute over a sales contract. The oral sales contract involved was a true expression of intent, did not violate mandatory and effective provisions of laws and regulations, and was legally valid. Based on the facts ascertained, Yang's claim that the store failed to conduct quarantine inspection on the cat before sale, violating relevant legal provisions, is confirmed by this court. Yang's claim that the cat provided by the store was ill at the time of sale, constituting a breach of contract by the store, was not admitted by the store, but the store failed to provide evidence to the contrary. Given that the cat involved was not subject to quarantine inspection, it should be legally determined that the cat had issues at the time of sale, i.e., the store breached the contract. Yang's request to rescind the contract, refund the payment, and compensate for losses based on this is in line with legal provisions and is supported by this court. However, the medical expenses claimed by Yang were not entirely caused by the store's breach. According to the contract terms between the parties, if the cat had issues, it could be returned or exchanged, thereby limiting the breach losses to the price range of the cat. When Yang requested a return or exchange, the store merely failed to respond promptly, and Yang directly took the cat for medical treatment, incurring medical costs several times higher than the cat's price, which violated the contract terms. Yang also bears fault for this loss and should bear corresponding losses. Accordingly, this court determines that both parties shall each bear 50% of the medical expenses. Yang's claim that the store engaged in fraudulent conduct, demanding compensation of three times the purchase price, was not admitted by the store, and Yang failed to provide valid evidence, lacking factual basis, so this court does not support it.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the store shall return Yang the cat purchase price of 500 yuan, compensate for the cat's medical expenses of 1,000 yuan, and pay interest on the above amounts (calculated at the one-year loan market quoted rate from December 7, 2023, to the date of actual payment, based on 1,500 yuan), and dismissed Yang's other claims. After the judgment was rendered, both parties accepted it without appeal, and the judgment has now taken effect.

Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

　Article 563, Paragraph 1, Item 4

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

　　……

(4) Where one party delays performance of its obligations or commits other breaches of contract, thereby making it impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract;

　　……

Articles 566, Paragraphs 1 and 2

After the contract is terminated, if it has not been performed, performance shall cease; if it has been performed, depending on the circumstances of performance and the nature of the contract, the parties may request restoration to the original state or take other remedial measures, and have the right to claim compensation for losses. If the contract is terminated due to breach, the party entitled to terminate may request the breaching party to bear liability for breach, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

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 or dogs at street stalls, markets, or flower and bird markets. However, in some cases, the cats or dogs sold have not undergone any inspection or quarantine, and their health status is not fully guaranteed. If they die from illness within a few days of being brought home, who should bear the relevant responsibility and how should it be allocated? In this case, as a dispute over a sales contract, liability should be allocated according to the contract terms and fault in accordance with the law. Sellers of live animals must obtain the appropriate business qualifications and provide corresponding animal quarantine certificates in accordance with the Animal Epidemic Prevention Law of the People's Republic of China; otherwise, they shall bear corresponding liability. Selling healthy pets is the seller's fundamental contractual obligation. If it is determined that the pet in question was problematic at the time of sale, the seller shall bear liability for breach of contract, refund the purchase price, and compensate the consumer for reasonable losses. If a consumer blindly purchases from an unregulated pet store or when the seller fails to provide an animal quarantine certificate, and their subsequent actions lead to an expansion of the losses from the breach, they also bear some fault and shall bear corresponding losses. As for whether fraud is constituted, it depends on whether the following conditions are met: the seller has the intent to defraud; the seller informs the consumer of false information or conceals the true situation; the consumer makes a declaration of intent based on a mistaken understanding. If the seller knowingly conceals the pet's illness and sells it, resulting in the pet's death from illness, the consumer may demand that the seller refund the price and provide triple compensation in accordance with the Consumer Rights Protection Law on the grounds of fraud.