Here we go again--
My friend and I (she is a Goy) went to a nearby city to buy a couple of prize milk goats (Nubians). Hers had just had her kids (so she was second year freshener) and mine was yet to give birth (one year old). She paid 350. The owner is raising all the young on the bottle to keep them very tame and easy to handle. This is typical for breeders of this kind of goat to sell after kidding so they have the kids without having to feed the mother for another year before she produces again. This is usually done when the doe is not "perfect". The two of us return happy with our new purchases. Her goat begins acting a bit sluggish on the second day she arrives. So my friend takes her to the vet. The vet sees she has a fever but cannot find the cause. She is given IV and antibiotics. The next day the goat is dead by nightfall. Just before dying (a few hours or so), the goat passes a portion of placenta which had evidently been retained during her birthing. The necrotic tissue was the cause of the goat's demise, we conclude and the vet agrees. The vet however cannot do a necropsy becasue she has to go out of town. The previous owner was called continuously throughout these procedings. He is a goy as well. He refused to do anything about it, and left her with an "I'm sorry". Since the goat had the babies under his care, and he didn't flush her out with water and iodine (not required but recommended in cases where the whole placenta is not clearly present when examined after the birth) and the placenta retention was clearly no fault of hers, shouldn't there be some sort of reconciling?

Questions:

1. Aside from the fact that it is a tacky thing to do to someone, is he obligated legally to make it right (in any way--even by providing another at half price or a little doe)?

2. Were he Jewish, and he did this to me, (could have just as easily been the goat I chose) would he be halachicly bound to remedy it?

3. IF this were to happen to me (reversed-- I sold a goat who died three days later under the new owner's care, but not due to their incompetence) what are my responsibilities to a Jew or to a Goy? My conscience would likely get the better of me regardless, but I would like to know the "official stance".

--BY THE WAY-- the goat was not verbally or written as sold "as is". But neither was a written/oral guarantee. Full Pure bred papers were involved.

quote:

--BY THE WAY-- the goat was not verbally or written as sold "as is". But neither was a written/oral guarantee. Full Pure bred papers were involved.

No kidding, I know nothing about this. But what are the standards within the farming business for what is normally assumed?

In Gemara Bava Basra, I think the 10th Perek, there is a fair bit of discussion about what it means to sell a yoke, whether it includes the 2 oxen; and similarly for whether selling an ox includes its saddle or work harness. And cases seem to be decided based on what is the local custom for what words mean.

So if the local custom is that a female goat who has just given birth is reasonably assumed to not have a left over placenta still within her, and that her owner at time of giving birth checked to see that the entire placenta was accounted for...

Then perhaps there is some reasonably assumed warranty that this goat was suitable to live on for more than 3 days.

On the other hand, perhaps regardless of any injury at the hand of the owner, since the goat lived on for "a day or two", just like the owner of a slave would have less than full liability, all the more so for an animal who lived for 3 days?

I would like to compare it to Choshen Mishput 224:2 that if someone sold a Traifa, it's a mekach Taos (a mistaken purchase) as long as it can be proven the defect was before the purchase. So too here if you sold a goat that was defected (it had it's placenta tehre ready to kill it) then it's a Mekach Taos and should be refunded. if there is no way to find out when the defect came into being, like it somehow died shortly after the purchase, which may had happen by itself or by being defected from before, then the buyer is out of luck., since it can't be proved that you bought a defective product.

Perfectly applied, Rav, thankyou! I really cannot see how someone wouldn't make this right. It is so clearly not the fault of the purchaser. Poor lady. I will have a talk with him. I am hoping to "embarrass him" into doing the right thing, by telling him that the veterinarian said it was clearly defective before purchase, therefore she should be at the least, replaced by a little doe. Otherwise, I will not purchase anything from him anymore, show quality or otherwise, and I will not recommend him to others either. In the meantime, poor Mandy is out of luck, it appears. Although, I feel as though she could take this to a secular court and I feel could have justice done-- but who wants to go through all that!?

Rob-- yes, being a Jewish farmer certainly tests one's knowledge of halacha!! I have to deal with all sorts of agrarian laws not usually dealt with in todays more modern Communities.

There is an assumption of health (clearly) when you purchase an animal. I would never sell an animal immediately after giving birth-- although many do. I would wait at least a couple of weeks, as any number of things could go wrong and seem to present at this, the more vulnerable stage...

The poor doe didn't make it to 60 hours. That seems ridiculous to me. If she had the signs of an ingested poisonous plant or other toxicant, I could see the argument. But there IS NO argument being put forth (even more suspicious) only an "I'm very sorry to hear that". That is unacceptable and most "goat people" here do NOT do business that way--you are purchasing a healthy animal is the assumption-- if one finds it is NOT healthy, then it should be recticified IMMEDIATELY. Unbelievable.

One of my fellow goat farmers has a huge written guarantee of health on her website stating that if for ANY reason the goat is deemed somehow "defective" over time due to genetics or inherited illness so long as it was determined not to be something contracted or otherwise incurred at the new owner's home, then the animal will be replaced by another acceptable one of same gender and approximate age. That is a guarantee I don't even offer, because it isnt' even really time-bound. She means within a couple of YEARS. Gracious. But then-- she has business coming out of her ears too.

That such a guarantee is written could be an indication that it is not the norm.

For your friend's situation you want to find out what is the norm absent any special negotiation or special published terms that differentiate from the norm.

Rob-- thanks for posting! It is the normative behaviour/business practice to insure the animal is healthy for a period of days after purchase, or (such as in the case of the animal frowing up and maturing wherein this can reveal oterhwise less obvious flaws in physical make-up which would disqualify said animal from being a show prospect) to replace it.

The fact that this one is so greatly detailed and covers SO MUCH time and is such a broad and sweeping guarantee, makes it different and that is why it is in writing, because it goes above and beyond industry standards.

But the guarantee itself is normative.