now the whole rs are scammers just because we stated our personal experience and opinions.

No one is siding with the seller as they were wrong in what they did but when you take on the responsibility of another living thing you would invest a considerable amount of time an energy into making sure that it is in goo healthy, that it has been properly taken care of ect ect.
These are not things you (aka "your friend") have done and now its going to cost you.
These things, they are all byproducts of trying to save a buck or two and in this case it bit you in the ass.
Suck it up, take care of the dog and be better informed next time you go out into the real world because, after all, there are liars out there that will take your money if you are so easily parted from it.

First post updated with almost all details.

edit:

1. luxating patella requires radiographs/x-rays to be diagnosed, a simple checkup will not reveal this problem. Even if the buyer went for a checkup, the vet wouldn't have found that. Which is the reason why the seller was so confident about his "clean vet history". Yes the buyer should have done a checkup anyways, everyone learns something new every day.

2. i am not my friend

Glad to hear you are going to get YOUR dog taken care of.

Wait.. so.. your saying that the dog is completely healthy atm?

But it won't be needing a surgery a year or so down the road.

That's like.. You asking the buyer to give you warranty for the rest of the dogs life.

And now let's compare it to a car again. "let's say a timing belt change, now that I got it re-inspected AFTER purchase and was told it needs to be done in 2 years, I m gonna go to the seller and tell them" oh, car needs new belt and you have to pay for it. "

No its like saying you have a tumor and you want to remove it, but doctors says no because you are only 1 year old and you need to be 2 years old to remove it. Don't give me shit for typing this, not sure what other examples I can give.

Technically, in the eyes of the law, a dog is considered property, and can be treated the same as any other property. Like a car.

People with souls know that dogs are more than a car could be.

If I had to settle for anything else other than my dream car, I would still give it the proper maintenance because it's the responsible thing to do. So, the answer is yes. I would still treat it the same.

I think the OPs point was that he felt the dog was mis-represented at the time of sale. This has nothing to do with warranty. As always with used goods it's, caveat emptor.

This is such an incredibly false statement I feel like my head is going to explode. The average age for surrenders to shelters is about 18 months old. Because everyone wants a cute cuddly puppy, they don't bother training it and now they are a misbehaved adolescent. I adopted my dog at 8 (speculated) months old, and all the dogs in the shelter except 1 or 2 out of about 10 were under 3. I know this isn't that relevant, but its misinformation like that, that keeps people from going to a shelter or rescue in the first place.

Actually, I do understand OP's point here (and his friend's) and I agree. To use the car analogy, it's like the seller saying, "No no, this car doesn't need any work", then you take it and find out the transmission is about to go... THEN FIND OUT THE SELLER KNEW FULL WELL THE TRANSMISSION WAS ON ITS LAST LEGS.

That's the issue here: the buyer has proof that the seller knew of a potential issue that would cost money, and the seller didn't disclose it in advance. That doesn't necessarily mean you don't take the car (or dog) anyway, but it's always nice to know what you're getting yourself into instead of getting hit with a surprise down the road, WHEN THE SELLER ALREADY KNEW ABOUT IT AND SHOULD HAVE TOLD YOU.

When we got Taffy from the shelter a little over a year ago, they told us of her medical needs... and the owner that surrendered her told them about her medical needs: she had suffered from pancreatitis in the past, meaning she needs a low-fat diet to avoid it. In this case, that's important for a new owner to know, because without knowing it we could have inadvertently caused a recurrence of the condition. To use the car analogy in this case, it would maybe be like... the seller neglecting to tell you that the car knocks like crazy if you don't use premium gas, so you put in regular gas, and end up blowing a hole in a valve.

I have another example where a seller revealing a dog's medical condition could have saved a dog's life, but probably didn't because she knew it would be expensive to fix... but that one's a bit long-winded and I'll save it for another time.

I'm having a hard time trying to follow this non-sense OP has posted.

What was the evidence OP said they had that shows that the seller knew about the animal's defective condition?

Um i went through the exact thing. We purchased a dog from a breeder in Texas, the day before she shipped her, she said she's limping, experiencing some sort of sprain. We advised the seller to bring her into the vet to have the limp examined. She reported that it was just a sprain, so we ok'd her to be shipped to us. When we received her, we noticed that her front left elbow was dislocated, wouldn't stay in place. We found out from 3 vets it was luxating.

To keep the story short, we managed to get all our money back by threatening to call their local police department and better business bureau. As for our dog, our vet did not recommend surgery as her arm was not causing her pain. She is now 3 years old and happily walking on her 3 remaining legs. Btw, she is a Shih Tzu.

Good luck with the legal battle and let me know how it goes.


Edit: For those curious about the type of surgey, we were advised of 2. One was to attach artificial legiments into the elbow. They mentioned that it does not guarantee that the arm will work after surgery and will likely cause pain through the remainder of the dog's life. The second surgey would involve a full amputation of the arm. This may result in phantom leg syndrome and pain for the dog for the rest of her life.

I knew of another dog that had double luxating hind legs, went through surgey, was successful but could not rehab it to a point of where it could live normally. The dog eventually passed away soon after the surgery (not sure if it was related to the surgery).

Before the buyer found out the problems the dog had, the seller of the dog emailed the buyer's fake AD saying that they sold the dog because of those 2 problems. (picture 1)

Because of this, the buyer brought the dog to multiple vets and all of them confirmed that the dog does have those 2 EXACT problems.

Buyer tries to give the seller a second chance for them to make it right, but they continue to lie multiple times. (picture 2)

When seller was provided picture 1, seller immediately offered partial refund.

As stated in first post now, the buyer has already settled with the seller and got a partial refund which will go towards the dog's surgery.

LMFAO....How much did they settle on?...I'm sure it's next to nothing compared to total cost of surgery.

Slightly less than half the surgery cost.

lol Give me a number...and are you talking about total surgery cost? For both the undescended testicle and bilateral luxating patella?

Were you the seller?