Woman sought refund after tomcat failed to do the deed

A CAT owner, who paid €400 to the owner of a tomcat to get her feline pregnant, was told by a district court judge that the ‘magic didn’t happen’.

Judge Colm Roberts made the comment when dismissing the small claims case at Bandon District Court last week.

Claimant Inna Kozinda of 35 The Willows, Castleheights, Carrigaline sought the return of €400 that she gave Natalija Rubika of 6 Castledon Mews in Bandon in September 2019 after they orally agreed that her British shorthair cat could stay over at her home on several occasions, to get impregnated by Ms Rubika’s tomcat.

However, the court heard that ‘Mother Nature’ didn’t arrive and that Ms Kozinda wanted her money back as a result.

She told the court that she placed an ad on Facebook on September 15th 2019 looking for a male cat to impregnate her pedigree puss.

Ms Rubika replied to the ad, as she has a similar British shorthair male cat who had ‘experience’ of impregnating cats.

‘She said the service would cost €400 and that I would keep bringing the cat over until she got pregnant,’ said Ms Kozinda, who added that there was no time limit agreed as to how long she would keep bringing her cat to Ms Rubika’s house.

‘I bought her four times to her house between September 2019 and April of last year, but she didn’t get pregnant. I’m entitled to get my money back.’

She told the court that while she understands it’s Mother Nature at work, it was her belief that the service she had asked for was not provided.

‘I asked her for a refund and she said no as she said she was minding my cat at those times.’

Judge Roberts said he had never heard of this situation before but was ‘open to new things’.

He said that one could bring the ‘Romeo of cats’ to Ms Kozinda’s cat and she couldn’t get pregnant if, for example, she was infertile. ‘Maybe your cat didn’t want to be a mother and the likelihood of it not happening after the fourth time was strong,’ said Judge Roberts.

Ms Rubik said they were on good relations initially and had told Ms Kozinda to bring her cat over again, if it didn’t work the first time or time after.

‘I never guaranteed pregnancy as it’s [down to] Mother Nature, but I could offer them the opportunity to meet.

‘It didn’t work out and I offered her more times for her cat to stay with us,’ she said.

In dismissing the claim, Judge Roberts said the contract between the two women was ‘too unclear.’

And he said Ms Rubika didn’t confirm the cat could attend her home on an indefinite basis.