Pet Store Pushes Back Against Claims It Misled Customer Into Lease With 100 Percent Interest
A lawsuit claiming a pet shop tricked a woman into leasing a puppy is unfounded and uncalled for, according to the store and its attorney, who say the customer should have been more diligent in understanding the lease agreement she signed.
February 07, 2019 at 01:17 PM
4 minute read
Manchester-based The Dog House says a lawsuit singling it out for the purchase of a puppy that went sour is unfair. It claims the dog owner made a bad decision, did not read the fine print, and has only herself to blame.
In an email to the Connecticut Law Tribune, the pet store said it should not “have to spend time, money and resources defending ourselves against ridiculous accusations.”
“The terms of the transaction could not have been more clear. There was a whole page (of the agreement) dedicated to describing the terms,” employee Katie Kelleher wrote on behalf of the business. “It clearly says 'important information concerning your lease.”'
The dispute stems from a lawsuit by 21-year-old Christina Diskin against the family-owned shop last month. Among other things, Diskin claims the price of the pug-beagle mix was too high, that she paid 100 percent interest under a lease agreement, and that the Dog House misled her about the contract.
“No one told the plaintiff she was signing a lease agreement,” Diskin's complaint claimed. “No one printed the documents or went over the terms, including the payments, interest rates. … The lease was emailed to her after the transaction.”
Diskin claimed she ended up with a $3,789 lease agreement with the store.
But Kelleher said the information was not hidden, as “it was right on top and called to the customer's attention.” The contract very clearly states, Kelleher said, “You understand that this agreement is a lease, not a loan and that you are leasing the product(s).”
Mike Conroy, attorney for the Dog House, told the Connecticut Law Tribune Thursday that with regard to the 100 percent interest rate, Diskin is barking up the wrong tree, as that is between her and My Pet Funding, the Virginia-based leasing company.
With regard to the rest of the lawsuit, Conroy said, “Not only is everything spelled out, all of the terms and conditions are spelled out. But there is also a sign at the checkout counter that lays out the basic elements of this financing agreement. As I understand how the process works, for someone to actually make an application, it's very, very difficult to go through the process and complete the application without understanding the terms she claims were withheld from her.”
Conroy, a partner with Simsbury-based Hassett & George, said it's the first time in the more than 20 years the Dog House has been in business that it has been sued. “We will fight this lawsuit to the extent necessary,” Conroy said. “The owners of the Dog House are certainly upset as they did nothing wrong.”
Kelleher said the Dog House is well aware leasing is “an expensive option.”
“We tell people that so they can make an informed decision,” she wrote in her email.
Assertions in the lawsuit that the fair market value for puggles is between $300 and $600 are simply not true, Kelleher said. “I don't know where her lawyer got this fair market value, but it's entirely inaccurate, especially in Connecticut,” she said.
Kelleher also said Diskin and her attorney should have called the store to discuss the issue, before starting litigation. “She skipped the logical and considerate next step and jumped straight to a lawsuit,” Kelleher said.
Scott Camassar, a partner with North Stonington-based Law Firm of Stephen M. Reck and Scott D. Camassar, represents Diskin. Camassar was out of state handling a deposition Thursday and was not available for comment by press time. Last month, he told the Connecticut Law Tribune that what the Dog House did was “disgusting,” and that the shop had “ripped off” his client.
Matthew Brown of Wiggin & Dana represents the leasing company, My Pet Funding. He did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Trending Stories
- 1How ‘Bilateral Tapping’ Can Help with Stress and Anxiety
- 2How Law Firms Can Make Business Services a Performance Champion
- 3'Digital Mindset': Hogan Lovells' New Global Managing Partner for Digitalization
- 4Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Has New York Sentence Pardoned by Trump
- 5Settlement Allows Spouses of U.S. Citizens to Reopen Removal Proceedings
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250