Kathryn Porter took David Loewen to B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal seeking compensation she said was owed to her under a “puppy purchasing agreement.”
According to the decision published on the CRT website Thursday, the agreement indicated that Porter would pay Loewen $4,000 to purchase a labradoodle, which she named Pippa.
The contract called for Porter to keep Pippa in a “guardianship capacity” to accommodate Loewen’s desire to breed the dog “up to a maximum of three times” before she reached five years old, after which ownership of Pippa would be fully transferred to Porter.
Each time Pippa was successfully bred, Loewen would pay Porter half the purchase price of one puppy. If the contract was breached, Porter would be required to return Pippa to Loewen, “immediately, without compensation, and without Mr. Loewen having to prove actual damages,” according to the CRT decision.
Tribunal member Alison Wake wrote the decision that Porter paid the $4,000 purchase price to Loewen and took guardianship of Pippa in January 2021. The dog gave birth to a litter of nine puppies in July 2022.
After the puppies were born, Porter informed Loewen that she could no longer care for Pippa, and returned the dog to him.
Wake wrote that this constituted a “repudiation” of the contract.
“When a contract is repudiated, the non-repudiating party (sometimes called the ‘innocent party’) may either accept the repudiation, or treat the contract as still being in force and sue for damages for past or future breaches,” Wake wrote. “I infer Ms. Porter argues Mr. Loewen accepted her repudiation, as he undisputedly retained custody of Pippa.”
In his submissions to the tribunal, Loewen argued that Porter did not “fulfill the purpose and intent of her obligation as a guardian” and broke the agreement, but Wake found there was no evidence that Loewen had ever previously objected to the repudiation.
Thus, the tribunal member found that the Loewen had accepted the repudiation and the contract had been terminated.
“As noted above, the contract stated that in the event of a breach, Ms. Porter would be required to return Pippa to Mr. Loewen immediately and without compensation,” Wake wrote. “However, because I have found the parties mutually agreed to terminate the contract, Ms. Porter did not breach the contract by refusing to continue to care for Pippa for further breeding cycles. So, I find this term does not apply to disentitle Ms. Porter to compensation for Pippa’s puppy litter.”
Likewise, the tribunal member concluded that the mutual termination of the contract did not free Loewen from obligations under the contract that had already “matured” while it was in effect.
Specifically, Wake wrote: “Mr. Loewen’s obligation to pay Ms. Porter half of the value of one puppy matured at the time Pippa delivered her puppies.”
While the contract did not specify how much one puppy was worth, the tribunal member accepted Porter’s undisputed evidence that they cost $4,000.
Wake ordered Loewen to pay Porter $2,000 in damages for breach of contract, plus $71.46 in pre-judgment interest from the time the puppies were born and $125 in CRT fees. The total award was $2,196.46.
Source: CTV News
