Edmunds v. Stevens
A-16-129
| Neb. Ct. App. | Apr 4, 2017Background
- Buyer Patrick Edmunds purchased a German Shepherd puppy (Bree) from seller Carol Stevens under a March 19, 2013 sales agreement that included a 1-year warranty for hips/elbows.
- Stevens advertised breeding quality dogs and cited breeder seminars; Edmunds bought Bree intending to breed and show her and relied on those representations.
- Around age two, radiographs and an OFA evaluation diagnosed Bree with an ununited anconeal process (UAP), a condition the treating veterinarian described as having a genetic component and advising against breeding.
- Edmunds sued in small claims court seeking damages and vet costs; the county court found the 1-year warranty clause void under the Dog and Cat Purchase Protection Act and awarded Edmunds $2,665.
- The county court also held, under the Nebraska U.C.C., that Stevens did not act in good faith by limiting the warranty period to one year because UAP typically cannot reliably be diagnosed until about two years of age; the district court affirmed and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bree’s UAP is genetic | Edmunds: Veterinarian and OFA reports indicate UAP is genetic and breeding is not recommended | Stevens: Environmental causes (diet, trauma) plausible; no DNA test done | Court: Evidence supported genetic causation; credibility resolved for Edmunds |
| Whether 1‑year warranty provided sufficient discovery period | Edmunds: Warranty expired too soon; statutory protections require longer; UAP not reliably diagnosable within 1 year | Stevens: UAP growth plate fuses by ~5 months; radiographs/ratings could be obtained within warranty; agreement only required OFA rating, not diagnosis | Court: Warranty void under Dog & Cat Purchase Protection Act; U.C.C. good faith analysis supports finding that defects often not detectable until ~24 months; 1‑year limit unreasonable and seller lacked good faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Hara v. Reichert, 287 Neb. 577 (appellate review of small claims judgments standard)
- Flodman v. Robinson, 22 Neb. App. 943 (standard for reviewing small claims record)
- First Nat. Bank of Unadilla v. Betts, 275 Neb. 665 (review for errors appearing on the record; de novo review for questions of law)
- Henrikson v. Gleason, 263 Neb. 840 (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence; resolve conflicts in favor of successful party)