ILLINOIS CASE LAW:

Nikolic v. Seidenberg, 610 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)

Facts: Pet owner adopted a dog and signed a contract agreeing to spay her dog at a specific vet's office and to return the dog to that same vet if the dog became sick. The dog became sick and she called the vet's office, and the vet indicated that the dog's condition was
nothing to be worried about. The owner took her dog to another vet who did exploratory
surgery and repaired a cut in the dog's intestine. The pet owner then filed suit against the first vet to recover her medical expenses. The trial court granted the vet's motion to dismiss the case based on the fact that the owner had signed a contract stating the dog had to be treated at that vet's office.

On appeal the appellate court held that since the veterinarian was not a party to the contract
between the pet owner and the adopting agency, and because the vet who was named in the contract was not a direct beneficiary of the agreement, the vet could not rely on the
contract's terms as defense.

Importance of the Appellate Court's ruling:

Basically this means that if you obtain a pet through one party and that party requires you to go to a third party for medical care and something goes wrong, and then you take your pet to another vet for additional medical treatment, you will have the right to sue the first vet to
recover your costs.

This is important, because if the court had ruled differently, it would difficult or impossible to sue the first vet for the medical costs incurred when you took your pet to another vet for treatment, even if the problem was caused by the first vet.