No refunds policy, but seller failed to disclose saftey issue

[happytrailrider]

And I may have found something under Maryland law.

§10–619.
(e) An owner of a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog who sells or gives the dog to another shall notify in writing:
(1) the authority that made the determination under subsection (c) of this section, of the name and address of the new owner of the dog; and
(2) the person taking possession of the dog, of the dangerous behavior or potentially dangerous behavior of the dog.
(f) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $2,500.

Thank you very much!!!

 

[Shadowbunny]

A no refund policy does not free a seller from gross negligence. The adoption agency failed to disclose information that there is physical proof showing they knew the dog was vicious as diagnosed by a vet and didn’t not tell us that, either in the dog’s description or in person when we showed up. They knew about it and didn’t tell us, and had we known about this we would not have signed the form or made the adoption. Is there nothing that protects a buyer from a sleezball move like that?

What sort of physical proof?

 

[adjusterjack]

How much money did you give this "adoption agency"?

 

[happytrailrider]

What sort of physical proof?

Vet paperwork stating that the dog was vicious and "caution, dog will bite" was stated in the medical record, that we received after the fact.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I think your best way to proceed is to send a copy of that law along with a request for a refund. Don't make any threats in your request. Just ask for your fee back.

 

[happytrailrider]

I think your best way to proceed is to send a copy of that law along with a request for a refund. Don't make any threats in your request. Just ask for your fee back.

Just did that. They haven't responded to our calls, so not sure if the message we sent through paypal will be any different. Should my next action be small claims court if they don't respond, or is there some intermediate action I can take?

 

[Shadowbunny]

Vet paperwork stating that the dog was vicious and "caution, dog will bite" was stated in the medical record, that we received after the fact.

Was that the rescue or foster's vet? Or from the previous owner's vet?

(And as an aside, my older dog doesn't do well at the vet. She's a pound-puppy, and does NOT like having her temp taken. At all. So she gets the muzzle and the Big Red Stamp of Shame on her vet record. However, at home or anywhere else, she's a good girl. A very good girl. Never at all vicious. So a dog's experience at the vets doesn't always translate to behavior away from the vet.)

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Just did that. They haven't responded to our calls, so not sure if the message we sent through paypal will be any different. Should my next action be small claims court if they don't respond, or is there some intermediate action I can take?

Stop using any sort of internet or text messaging. Send a letter, through the mail. The address you need to send it to can be found here. https://egov.maryland.gov/businessexpress/entitysearch If they don't reply then you will file in small claims court using the same address.

 

[NeilTheCop]

And I may have found something under Maryland law.

§10–619.
(e) An owner of a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog who sells or gives the dog to another shall notify in writing:
(1) the authority that made the determination under subsection (c) of this section, of the name and address of the new owner of the dog; and
(2) the person taking possession of the dog, of the dangerous behavior or potentially dangerous behavior of the dog.
(f) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $2,500.

But considering that every year in the US dogs attack on average 4.7 million people, and so far this year 13 people have been killed by dogs in the US (the youngest only 3 months old), ALL dogs are potentially dangerous.

 

[quincy]

But considering that every year in the US dogs attack on average 4.7 million people, and so far this year 13 people have been killed by dogs in the US (the youngest only 3 months old), ALL dogs are potentially dangerous.

I find the "potentially dangerous" words in the law problematic for exactly the reason bolded above.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I didn't write the law. But one would think that a dog that a vet has stated is vicious is certainly closer to "potentially dangerous" than the average dog. And I was simply suggesting the OP use the law as a bargaining chip.

 

[Zigner]

I find the "potentially dangerous" words in the law problematic for exactly the reason bolded above.

The phrase is defined in the statute: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gcr&section=10-619&ext=html&session=2018RS&tab=subject5


§10–619.
(a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.
(2) “Dangerous dog” means a dog that:
(i) without provocation has killed or inflicted severe injury on a person; or
(ii) is determined by the appropriate unit of a county or municipal corporation under subsection (c) of this section to be a potentially dangerous dog and, after the determination is made:
1. bites a person;
2. when not on its owner’s real property, kills or inflicts severe injury on a domestic animal; or
3. attacks without provocation.

 

[quincy]

The phrase is defined in the statute: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=gcr&section=10-619&ext=html&session=2018RS&tab=subject5


§10–619.
(a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.
(2) “Dangerous dog” means a dog that:
(i) without provocation has killed or inflicted severe injury on a person; or
(ii) is determined by the appropriate unit of a county or municipal corporation under subsection (c) of this section to be a potentially dangerous dog and, after the determination is made:
1. bites a person;
2. when not on its owner’s real property, kills or inflicts severe injury on a domestic animal; or
3. attacks without provocation.

So, there is first a determination that a dog is "potentially dangerous" before the dog is actually shown to be dangerous. Again, I find that problematic.