This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Jenni78 on 28 April 2012 - 00:04
by BlackthornGSD on 28 April 2012 - 00:04
I think I couldn't answer the question posed as it is--too much depends on the circumstances and the specific situation.
by Dawulf on 28 April 2012 - 00:04
Caring for the dog comes first in my opinion. No dog should have to suffer in pain because so-and-so needs their money first. And if it were an abuse case, screw giving them their money back. I almost wonder if it were bad enough, if someone could be taken to court over abusing the animal in the first place (make 'em pay for the med bills, IF it was indeed caused by them abusing it). But I guess what your contract says re:refund could have something to do with whether or not they get their cash back at all.
Just my opinion.
by Bhaugh on 28 April 2012 - 00:04
What is the mental condition of the dog your referring to?
by brynjulf on 28 April 2012 - 00:04
by Jenni78 on 28 April 2012 - 00:04
by Jenni78 on 28 April 2012 - 01:04
I don't want to give too many specifics because I hate to accuse someone of something without 110% proof, which is very difficult in this situation. Money is secondary to the dog, but when the dog needs an immediate $4-5k to be comfortable, and he deserves to get it, I feel like the person/s responsible can wait until he's comfortable to get their money back, if it cannot be proven that they caused it, which is my hope. I would hate to find out that I am as naive as I'm told and that his issues are not genetic. Think of how you all would feel to be accused of abuse if you weren't guilty of anything but ignorance and a little greed maybe. So, trying to be very careful here and tread lightly. I thought maybe I was looking at something wrong or missing another side to it.
by Chaz Reinhold on 28 April 2012 - 01:04
by Jenni78 on 28 April 2012 - 02:04
by Chaz Reinhold on 28 April 2012 - 02:04
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top