Mr. Davy purchased a parrot from Mr. Kidwai.  It was not a Norwegian Blue; it was an Eclectus.  Named Tiberius.  And he wasn’t pining for the fjords, but he was residing on the equally picturesque Salt Spring Island.

And in this case, the plumage DOES enter into it.

You see, this parrot started losing its feathers. Worried about its thinning plumage, Mr. Davy took it to a vet who informed him that the parrot had PBFD—Psittacine Beak and Feature Disease—and as a result now has a vastly reduced lifespan.  Tiberius is not yet an ex-parrot, but because of his PBFD he will run down the curtain and join the choir invisible much sooner than he otherwise would have. 

So Mr. Davy took Mr. Kidwai to the British Columbia Civil Resolutions Tribunal for having sold him a defective parrot.  Once we get past the irresistible similarities with the Monty Python sketch, the ruling in favour of Mr. Davy is quite interesting, and quite concerning for anyone who sells animals in Canada.

It is interesting, because the Member who decided the case found that Mr. Kidwai did not know, when he sold the parrot to Mr. Davy, that the parrot was sick.  So Mr. Davy’s action for fraudulent misrepresentation was dismissed. 

However, the Member went on to rule that BC’s Sale of Goods Act applied to the sale of this parrot.  The BC Sale of Goods Act specifies that goods sold in British Columbia must “be durable for a reasonable period of time having regard to the use to which they would normally be put and to all the surrounding circumstances of the sale”.  Relying on a previous case from the Civil Resolutions Tribunal which involved a puppy that developed seizures, the Member held that for the parrot to be “durable” within the meaning of the Act meant that the parrot had to remain healthy for six months after the sale. 

Because the parrot got sick less than six months after he was sold to Mr. Davy, the implied warranty of durability prescribed by the Sale of Goods Act had been breached and Mr. Kidwai had to repay 75% of the purchase price (only 75%, because Mr. Davy apparently got some value from having Tiberius as a pet) and also had to reimburse Mr. Davy for the veterinary fees he incurred. 

This case is not binding on other courts in Canada, but it nevertheless sets a very worrying precedent for anyone involved in breeding or animal husbandry.  I think very many kennel owners or breeders of domestic pets would be surprised to learn that when they sell an animal they are guaranteeing the animal’s health for six months after it leaves their premises.  Especially because most, if not all, of the factors which affect the animal’s health are out of the control of the breeder at that point. Equally concerning is the potential liability: not just for the price of the animal, but also for the cost of the owner’s veterinary bills, which the seller has no input on or control over.  This quirky case stands as a warning of the potential downside risk when selling pets.