My question involves a consumer law issue in the State of: Ohio
I'm rethinking if I should be suing my dog's breeder. I've filed a small claims suit against her for fraud. When she sold me my dog, she only said my dog ate a corncob and needed surgery to correct it. What I later found out, after I proved ownership to the veterinarian, is my dog was presented to her veterinarian emaciated, in acute renal failure needing 9 inches of necrotic intestine removed. In a fraud situation, which is expected, vague reference or explicit details?
My dog also had parasites. She's from a breeder on a farm. One I expected, the three I got seems excessive. That it took over a year to complete treatment, seems ridiculous to me. Is this an unreasonable, buyer beware situation?