|
OK - Commercial Breeder Act Regulations - Chapter 55. Commercial Pet Breeders |
Pursuant to the authority granted in the Oklahoma Commercial Breeders Act, these Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry regulations out line the licensing procedures, the standards of care, the transportation, and the record keeping provisions Oklahoma commercial breeders must follow. |
|
OK - Breeder - Title 532. Board of Commercial Pet Breeders |
Title 532 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code establishes the Board of Commercial Breeders and implements the Commercial Pet Breeders Act, codified at 59 O.S. § 5001 et. seq. Chapter 1 establishes the organization, operation, and purpose of the Board. |
|
OK - Breeder - Oklahoma Statutes Annotated. Title 4. Animals. Chapter 1A. Commercial Pet Breeders Act of 2012 |
This section comprises Oklahoma's Commercial Pet Breeders Act of 2012, now called the Commercial Pet Breeders and Animal Shelter Licensing Act. The law is now administered under the State Board of Agriculture. The high end of possible penalties for violations under the new act was increased to $10,000. The law requires a commercial breeders' directory be kept. The Board must post on its website the directory of commercial pet breeders who have been denied licensing, or whose licenses have been revoked. |
|
OH - Breeder - Chapter 956. Dog Breeding Kennels; Dog Retailers. |
This section represents Ohio's commercial dog breeding laws. Under the chapter, a "high volume breeder" is defined as an establishment that keeps, houses, and maintains six or more breeding dogs and: (1) In return for a fee or other consideration, sells five or more adult dogs or puppies in any calendar year to dog brokers or pet stores; (2) In return for a fee or other consideration, sells forty or more puppies in any calendar year to the public; or (3) Keeps, houses, and maintains, at any given time in a calendar year, more than forty puppies that are under four months of age, that have been bred on the premises of the establishment, and that have been primarily kept, housed, and maintained from birth on the premises of the establishment. High volume breeders have additional duties under the law related to well-being of the dogs kept. The chapter also details requirements for licenses and/or registrations for high volume breeders, rescues, and dog brokers. Inspections are also outlined in the chapter, with high volume breeders having a requirement of at least one inspection annually. Penalties for violation of provisions, availability of injunctions, and revocation of licenses is also covered.
|
|
O'Rourke v. American Kennels (Unpublished Disposition) |
In this highly entertaining Small Claims case, claimant seeks to recover the purchase price of her dog, Little Miss Muffet. The issue presented, in large part, concerns the dog's weight. Claimant contends that Muffet was supposed to be a "teacup dog." At eight pounds, she is well above the five pounds that is considered the weight limit for a "teacup" Maltese. Plaintiff paid an additional $1,000 above the standard $1,500 to purchase the smaller variety of Maltese. Plaintiff was awarded the differential in price, but not veterinary fees for a knee condition that developed after the warranty protections expired in the purchase agreement.
|
|
NV - Sales, pet - 597.997. Prohibition on certain offers to lease living animal or goods |
This Nevada law, enacted in 2017, prohibits a person from offering a lease on living animals for personal or household use, if the living animal is expected to have not more than a de minimis residual financial value at the end of the term of the lease or contract. The failure of a person to comply with this section constitutes a deceptive trade practice. A violation of this section constitutes consumer fraud for the purposes of NRS 41.600 |
|
NV - Pet Sales - Title 50. Animals. Chapter 574. Cruelty to Animals: Prevention and Penalties |
This Nevada statutory section comprises the state's pet sale laws. The law protects purchasers of pets by ensuring minimum standards of care at retail pet stores and allows purchasers to return "defective" pets within ten days of purchase. |
|
NV - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws |
These statutes comprise Nevada's dog laws. Among the provisions include a link to proper care requirements for companion animals, animal control ordinance provisions, and the dangerous dog law among others. |
|
Nuijens v. Novy |
Plaintiff brought a New York Small Claims Court action seeking recovery of the sum of $254.63, after a licensed veterinarian determined that plaintiff's newly purchased dog was unfit according to Article 35-B of the General Business Law. Specifically, plaintiff sought damages under two alternate theories: violation of the sale contract's five-day express warranty and violation of the implied warranty of merchantability. Due to the vet's initial diagnosis, plaintiff did not return the dog. The court held that plaintiff elected to forgo the express warranty by retaining the dog. With regard to the implied warranty of merchantability, the court found defendant is not a "person who deals in goods of the kind" to fall within the definition of merchant under the statute.
|
|
Nuijens v. Novy |
Plaintiff brought this action in Small Claims Court for the recovery of $254.63 after purchasing a dog from the Defendant. At the time of purchase, the Defendant gave a five day guarantee to the Plaintiff that if a veterinarian found anything wrong with the dog, the dog could be returned and the Plaintiff would receive a refund. The Plaintiff took the dog to a vet within five days and although she was told that the dog had a urinary infection, the Plaintiff kept the dog. Within 14 days of the sale, the Plaintiff learned that the infection was serious, and she contacted the Defendant requesting a refund under article 35-B of the General Business Law. The Court stated that Plaintiff's cause of action under the General Business Law failed: because it did not give the Plaintiff the right to recover damages, since the statute only covered "pet dealers" or "breeders" who sold more than one litter of animals per year. There was no evidence to indicate that the Defendant sold more than one litter of puppies. Also, because the Plaintiff chose not to return the dog for a refund within five days after learning about the infection, she could not seek recovery for breach of an express warranty (UCC 2-313). Lastly, because the Defendant was not a “merchant" the Plaintiff could not recover for the breach of an implied warranty (UCC 2-314). |
