Lanzhou Evening News reported that a pet cat purchased online died after arrival. Who should compensate? The seller said, "My cat had a physical examination before sale and there was nothing wrong with it." But the buyer said, "The cat received is a sick cat, and the merchant must compensate." Recently, the Xigu Court has accepted two claims cases arising from the death of pet cats, but the results of the two cases were very different.

"Pudding" died. The court rejected the buyer's compensation application.

At the end of October 2020, Zhang ordered a German curly cat named "Pudding" for 12,500 yuan on an e-commerce platform. On November 1, the pet store shipped the "pudding", and Zhang signed for the delivery the next day. On the same day, Zhang discovered that "Pudin's" eyes were slightly swollen and had pus-like eye droppings. After a few days of feeding, "Pudin" still did not improve. On November 13, Zhang sent “Pudding” to the pet hospital and was diagnosed with feline infectious peritonitis. Two weeks later, "Pudin" died due to ineffective treatment, and Zhang sued the pet store to court. During the trial, Zhang believed that the defendant pet store deliberately concealed the truth and sold sick pet cats, and requested the court to order the defendant to compensate for the losses and pay punitive damages equal to three times the purchase price. The defendant believed that the pet cat "Pudin" was in good health before being sold. The defendant also entrusted professionals to check it before shipping, and no abnormalities were found. During the shipping process, the transportation company also performed a health check on "Pudding" and fed the inspection results back to the defendant. No abnormalities were found, so the defendant should not be liable for compensation for the death of the pet cat.

The judge handling the case believes that the key to this case is to determine the time and cause of the pet cat "Pudding"'s illness. Although the plaintiff Zhang has always claimed that abnormalities in his eyes were discovered on the day he received the "pudding", he has not submitted any evidence to prove it; and the time when "pudding" was diagnosed by the pet hospital was November 13, which was 11 days after Zhang actually received the "pudding". It is impossible to determine whether the pet cat was sold with a disease or became sick after being sold. In addition, although the plaintiff Zhang had objections to the pet cat health test certificate provided by the defendant, he did not provide evidence to refute it. According to the principle of allocating the burden of proof, the plaintiff Zhang should bear the corresponding consequences of being unable to provide evidence, so the Xigu Court ruled to reject Zhang’s claim.

The seller of "Ailuo" died and was sentenced to bear compensation

While the outcome of "Pudin"'s death was not yet clear, the Xigu court accepted another dispute caused by online pet purchases, but the final verdict was very different...

On November 6, 2020, Wang planned to buy an extremely cute pet cat (later named "Ailuo") on an e-commerce platform. He communicated with pet stores many times about purchasing the cat. In order to facilitate the transaction, the pet store made a promise to Wang that "refunds and compensation will be made within 72 hours of arrival", promising that as long as the pet cat suffers from illness or death that is not caused by the buyer during this period, the pet store will return the goods and compensate him. On December 14, Wang sent "Ailuo" to the pet hospital for a comprehensive examination as soon as possible after receiving the goods, and it was confirmed that he was carrying the feline plague virus. Not long after "Ailuo" died of illness, Wang sued the pet store to court.

During the trial, the plaintiff Wang also made a request to the court for the pet store to compensate for losses and pay punitive damages. The defendant presented a large amount of evidence to prove that the pet cat "Ai Luo" had undergone strict epidemic prevention testing before being sold and was confirmed not to be infected with the feline plague virus. The judge handling the case believed that although both parties had no evidence to prove how the pet cat "Ailuo" was infected with the feline plague virus, because the plaintiff Wang took the pet cat to the pet hospital for examination on the day he received it and obtained the examination results, it can be concluded that the infection of the pet cat with the virus was not caused by the buyer. Since the defendant pet store had promised to the plaintiff "refund within 72 hours upon arrival" before the transaction, it should be liable for compensation if it had no evidence to prove that the pet cat's infection with the virus was caused by the plaintiff. As for the plaintiff's request for the defendant to pay punitive damages, since the defendant had provided evidence to prove that the pet cat "Ailuo" was not infected with the virus before the sale, and the plaintiff Wang had no evidence to prove that the defendant deliberately concealed the truth, the plaintiff's request could not be supported by the court.