Dempsey v. Rosenthal
New York City Civil Court
468 N.Y.S. 2d 441 (1983)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Ruby Dempsey (plaintiff) purchased a nine-week-old white poodle from a pet store run by American Kennels (defendant). Dempsey paid $541 for the dog and named it Mr. Dunphy. The contract allowed for a full refund if, within two weeks of the sale, a veterinarian determined that the pet was sick and unfit for purchase. Shortly after the purchase, a veterinary exam revealed that Mr. Dunphy had one undescended testicle because of a congenital condition. Dempsey, convinced that Mr. Dunphy was incapable of breeding, attempted to get a refund from American Kennels, which refused. Shortly after, another veterinarian confirmed the diagnosis. American Kennels stood by its refusal to issue a refund, and Dempsey filed suit. At trial, both of Dempsey’s veterinarians testified. Dr. Malcolm Kram conceded that, despite Mr. Dunphy’s condition, he was in good health. Moreover, according to Dr. Kram, Mr. Dunphy had the same level of fertility as a dog without the condition. Dr. Kram also stated that the condition was genetic and would be passed on to a litter, but passage of the condition might eventually cease. Finally, Dr. Kram opined that Mr. Dunphy could not be a show dog. Neither of Dempsey’s veterinarians stated that Mr. Dunphy was sick and unfit for sale. American Kennels offered the testimony of its veterinarian, Dr. Richard Holmes, who had also examined Mr. Dunphy. Dr. Holmes testified that he had found both testicles in the scrotum. Dempsey argued that American Kennels violated an implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Saxe, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.