The EFG has its own legal person so sometimes we get questions that others can’t really answer; this was one of those times.
“Glens now have PRA, there are two scientific papers to the fact and two places doing DNA testing. Until it was officially discovered you could have said PRA in Glen of Imaal Terriers was a matter of debate and nobody could have contradicted you. How does the discovery affect Glens from a legal point of view? I’m thinking of anybody selling puppies now we do have a known problem that can be avoided by testing. Do we have to tell new owners about PRA or, if they don’t mention it, can the seller avoid the subject-particularly if a) parents aren’t tested or b) the results weren’t the desired ones?
Until this question was looked into it wasn’t quite realised what a can of worms it opens but basically: Consumer Protection from the Unfair trading Regulation which replaced the Trades Description Act makes it an offence to “mislead by omission”. If you omit to tell a purchaser something that would have affected their decision to purchase you commit an offence. In addition consumers buying from business would have rights under Contact Law (Sale of Goods) if the dog was falsely described (i.e. knowingly omitted information). With private sales though it is much more a case of “buyer beware” but if a buyer asks any sort of question about health and all information that the seller is aware of is not revealed it could be considered that there is a breech of contract and the buyer could sue.