I guess I would come out in favor of the breeder who took the deposit, because that is "in fact" what a deposit is for!
I do not believe in good conscience and with legal impunity that the deposit should be refunded in whole or part. It is "as a matter of law" to bring suit against the deposit holder for a refund, and such deposit holder owes no response except in a court of law (of competent jurisdiction.)
One could argue that the deposit holder "should provide a list of expenses" damages which the deposit is being "charged against" but again no such further writing is required in common law. IE; tenant law states that a letter of "charge" against the deposit is required within a timely manor or refund of the deposit in whole. But this is not the case in simple contract law (consumers) unless that is made a statute in the resident state where the sale took place (state of the seller.)
Even a "Reasonable Person" with knowledge of the facts involved in the case would find it "not necessary" to refund the deposit. The rule of Caveat Emptor (Let the Buyer Beware) is implied here.
Dutch
P.S.- Still trying to save up for those Scarlet's
