Breeder Rights? Breeder Greed? - Page 11

Prager you can not know what the buyer thought, did she tell you? She left the dogs in the care of Wanda, not Molly-- when she went into the hospital, that surely is more telling than a document signed to obtain the pups with a clause designed to prevent them from ending up in a shelter, or to give the breeder the option to regain DNA control should the buyer SELL the dog. This buyer died, which does not equate to a for sale sign for the dogs.

Nor a revert back to the breeder bonanza.

"one of the opposing posters on this thread has told me of problems w/a dog that they spent a lot of money on and didn't get what they paid for/wanted. The irony is that had they not been so staunchly against us "controlling" breeders, perhaps their inquiry would've been taken more seriously, the communication more honest, and they would be happier with their dog. The dog is reportedly doing better (as I said it might if given some time) but there are things that don't change, and I maintain that *I*, or someone else more concerned w/lifetime placement, would not have sold this buyer this dog. "

I did assume, as I don't know who else on this thread would fit the bill like I did.  To me 1800 bucks is a lot for a dog that isn't as the breeder described, plus shipping, I had 2400 in to him.  Anyway, sorry if I misunderstood you, and did the ol' ass-u-me thing.

S'ok. ;-)  I meant "forum" and posted "thread" which is why you thought it was you. $1800 isn't cheap, but $2500+ shipping is more...pushed it damn near $3k.

Back to our regularly scheduled catfights....

Beetree
But ,  Yes I can. teh deciesed  accepted such contract during the purchase of the dog(s). That is all we can go on. Hypothetically,... what about if the person accepting such contract was worried that the  family may put the dogs down. It happened to me. And the buyer insisted that if she dies I will get the dog back? As matter of fact I had several people asked me that.
Prager Hans
 

I see Hans' point. However, a person like he's describing must not have trusted people to leave them with, and would most likely not have left them with family if they had gone into the hospital, as happened here. I have dogs I wouldn't give to family, and that also means that family doesn't watch them when I'm out of town, etc.

So, I agree on principle, but in this case, it should be assumed that the deceased felt the dogs were in good care w/that friend, or she wouldn't have left them there.

this owner left the dogs along with her other pets in her own home and had a friend come in a couple times/day to let them out and feed them.  Just like anyone would do if they were on a trip or - let's say, in the hospital for a procedure.  Either board them, or have a pet sitter come in.  Leave them with a friend, or family member.  Make more sense now?  I did offer to keep the dogs for her while she was in the hospital, after she contacted me asking me what I thought she should do - some of her dogs didn't get along with the others  (she had 4 dogs).   so she wasn't sure how to arrange them, and boarding one or two with me was certainly an option she was considering

anyway there was no reason for the owner to leave the dogs with me at that point since she made arrangements for their in-home care while she was in the hospital.

Prager is exactly right.  The owner and I discussed the contract verbally in detail, looked each other in the eyes and agreed on all points in the contract.  I always verbally explain the "right of first refusal in case the dog needs to be placed for any reason" as well as the other important things like hip/elbow and health guarantee, registration details, etc that are valuable to the owner.  The point in my contract that is valuable to me, is the right of first refusal in case the dog must be placed (or sold) for any reason.  Because this part of my contract is most important to me, I always discuss it in detail with every buyer for every puppy.  In this owner's case, we discussed it twice, and she signed two contracts for two dogs.  It doesn't matter what "you" would have done, or if "you" would have signed such an agreement or not - what matters is that this owner did agree to these terms, and did sign the contracts agreeing to honor them.  As I signed both contracts agreeing to honor my part of the contract, such as the health/hip/temperament/testicle/etc guarantee.  And apparently the owner was very happy with me as her breeder of choice, as she had two dogs from me, and I wouldn't even be able to start to count the number of people she referred to me over the years.

So since my contract isn't legally binding and wouldn't hold up in court should I decide to pursue the placement of the dogs - what about if (hypothetically speaking) one of my pups ends up with a health problem, and I decide not to honor my signed contract?  I guess the contract means nothing, even though both parties agreed to ALL of the terms and signed as proof of that agreement.  Or are contracts such as mine one-sided - if something happened to the dog I would have to honor my guarantee (replacement puppy, refund, partial refund, etc) but if someone decides to sell or place the dog they don't have to honor the right of first refusal (give me first chance to get back/buy back the dog)???
doesn't make much sense to me.

molly

molly

No, she did not accept a contract that gives the original breeder a right to her dogs upon death. That is not what that clause says or intends. If you say, you have people who would rather you cared for their animals instead of family, they surely would have given you possession of the dog(s) before they went to the hospital. And if they really were conscientious, they would have made a will etc. I mean think about it, which action takes precedent, (even if I agreed with your belief), the signing of a paper while acquiring a puppy years ago, or the action of giving possession to the actual caregiver?. Again, the courts do not see it your way, whew! A good thing! IMO 

Come on! This is about controlling the DNA, and making a profit, not because a breeder wants to keep tabs on every dog they ever bred! Hypothetical, of course. (And not you Jenni, your standards are exemplary, I'm not going to go near you with this. ) I certainly doubt the breeder in this case would have made it her business to attempt to take the dogs if they were neutered. I am totally guessing here, if they are altered I'll say I"m sorry, but I don't think I'll have to....!!!

Yes, beetree (one of the morons I mentioned in a previous post) you don't know what you are talking about - as usual.

molly

So what Molly, I have zero respect for you as a person. So explain to this moron, are they breedworthy or not? 

And whenever any dog of mine became seriously ill, I laid out serious money, of course that would have been for a rescue dog. Only in the pedigree world are there health guarantees. You love it both ways, the heartfelt, sentient, noble beast on one hand, and the exalted gene pool money-makers that line your pocketbook. Always using one to promote the other. 

I like my contract, it's pretty good. Now if I could just find someone to trim my pups nails. It was a great working weekend for my pups!!! Have one limping a bit on right front wheel. Cut a corner to fast and started a slight limp? Ezra's on R&R for a few. Sorry to derail.