Breeder Rights? Breeder Greed? - Page 24

I would like to add to the above.  If you  expect the breeders right of first refusal to pass on to the estate, do you have arrangements for the care of these dogs in case of your death?  

Do your owners know who to contact if you are dead?  Is there a formal arrangement?

"I'm not a big Molly fan. However, God help the person who would post exaggerated or false claims of my animals being mistreated or neglected. While I wouldn't care to do business with the woman if she owned the last 2 GSDs on the planet, I would never go so far to allege that she mistreated Eagle or any other dog unless I had HARD EVIDENCE. I wouldn't wish false accusations of animal neglect on my worst enemy."

Ditto.  GSDNewbie, regardless of how you feel about the contract or Molly's business practices, you're WAY off-base with your unproven allegations of neglect and I'd advise you to delete them ASAP.

No breeders reading this who offer contracts with first rights of refusal clauses? What do you ask of a buyer if he or she needs to re-home a dog they purchased from you?  

That's the thing, the care of the dog is the buyers responsibility, not the breeders since they sold it. Unless you sign one of Molly's new contracts, then if you don't give her the dog when she wants it, she'll be able to take your estate or heirs to court. 

And no one EVER answers the money remuneration-recompense questions!

Most breeders I know offer written contracts with their sales and those contracts normally contain a first right of refusal should the buyer not be able to provide for the dog. For me a written contract that includes a first right of refusal sends the message that this breeder has longterm commitments to the breed in general, specifically to dogs he or she breeds. I see this as a good thing. I don't think a breeder's responsibility ends with the sale.

First right of refusal generally means nothing more than should the buyer have to rehome the dog, the breeder is given the first option to take the dog back. Some breeders offer a partial refund, some offer to split any money gained on the sale of that dog after expenses. Some will just take the dog back and offer no compensation. Some times it depends on why the dog is returned. If it's for a reason like illness, divorce, loss of job then some breeders will give a partial refund on the dog. If it's for a reason like - I really wanted a smaller/bigger/prettier/uglier dog, then I think a breeder would be within his rights to not offer anything. The contract should address what will happen if the dog is returned.

The great part about written contracts is, if you don't want to agree to the terms, then you are free to buy a dog elsewhere.

True, Blitzen if the buyer is alive to make those decisions. Again, this buyer died unexpectedly, and did not have a binding contract that extends past their death. Do you think Molly should have paid the estate for the dogs if she had been successful in her bid to reclaim them? Because she kept repeating that the possessers of the dog never paid any money for them, so it sure didn't seem like she felt like paying them a dime. And like I said, those points and questions are daintily ignored.

I can't judge Molly's intentions, BeeTree. Seems to me that she's going to be damned either way. If she wasn't interested in taking back these dogs, she'd have been critisized too don't ya think?

I think you are wrong, Molly did offer to pay for these dogs if she could get them back, didn't she? 
 




 

Well, no, because no one asked her to take them--- she initiated this particular boondoggle, herself. And as far as I can tell, she thought she was entitled to the dogs and had no responsibility to pay anybody, or any estate a dime for them. 

I'm curious, since this thread hasn't died yet. What does one DO if people fail to keep the terms of the contract? Spend $10k on an atty for a $1500 dog?

I have contracts, but frankly I have no idea what I'd do if people failed to live up to them.

Well, that's the other thing, too much incorrect information was relayed by Molly originally, and that certainly came across as insensitive in the best case scenario, to downright bullying, depending on where one was sitting when she sent that first "Lawyer demand" letter without a hint of condolences.  She thought if she won in court, she wouldn't have to pay court costs, too. Turned out that was a bunch of hogwash.

She would have wasted money bringing Wanda to court, so she backed off. And was motivated to change the language on her current contracts so she could sue any heirs or the estate upon the death of an original owner, because she feels she is entitled to first crack at the dogs, no matter what,  should the original buyer die unexpectedly, or even without a will.

Now, this doesn't mean she has to automatically take any dog back or what amount she should pay for a dog if she does regain ownership. Just trust her with whatever, I guess. Not that Molly showed trust to this original owner with her choice of caretaker, only Molly's desires seem to matter, to well, her.

So VM, what would the reality be for someone in this situation that Wanda found herself in, if the deceased had signed a contract with the boilerplate language? Hmmmmmmm? That then makes it necessary to put a dollar value on the dogs, I would think, to decide if the court fight is worth it. A titled breedworthy dog, just might make it worthwhile. A senior, neutered dog with cancer, I doubt would be of much interest, especially if the dog was being well cared for by, yes, strangers .... to Molly.