Breeder Rights? Breeder Greed? - Page 9

Robin, that's precisely it. I don't know what else anyone could possibly add to that.

VK, you're also exactly right; buyers want the breeder to take all responsibility in some circumstances, and they want full responsibility on their own in others- you can't have it both ways. One thing I took exception to in your post is the assumption that a dog w/a problem would need to be returned per the guarantee. That's not a guarantee at all; that's a breeder cop out.

As a buyer I want and accept full responsibility for my dog that I purchase. No strings attached. And I would say Jenni, you are reasonable in your views as a "controlling clause" breeder, about leaving a dog in a good situation. You unfortunately, are not all breeders. We'll never really know who is missing out the most in a dog owner/breeder relationship, between us two, but I bet it would have worked out. 

Another hypothetical, lol !

I agree BT.  I have never signed a contract and have had some good, one very good, (one great) GSD's.    There are definitely breeders out there that breed for the best dog possible without all these clauses and strings. 

Breeders that train their dogs daily, in schutzhund mostly, and do the health tests, care about the dogs but dont' make you jump through hoops.  I know they'd be there for me if I needed them, and more importantly I've never had a weak eared, sick, or poorly conformed dog YET.  All coming from breeders that are not control freaks. 
They definitely DO exist. 
 

I don't think anyone would do less then applaud a breeder that takes back a dog when the dog needs a home.  And a standing ovation for anyone that does not take advantage of this situation when the owner is in it thru no fault of their own and either buy back the dog or split any rehoming fee.

Slap on the head to anyone that uses this clause to intimadate people into returning the dog to the breeder just because and does not trust their owner enough to rehome a dog, hopefully with the breeders assistance.  And shunning would be too good  for a breeder that would yank a dog out of a home to throw it in it's kennel just becasue they are the breeder and can.

In a perfect world the breeder and owner would work together in the best interest of the dog.  I know, I can dream, right?


I  think a lot of people have different definitions of right of first refusal.  To me that means if someone offers me x amount of dollars for the dog I have to offer the breeder the right to match that amount.  Am I correct? 

My legal knowledge is only a by product of my corporate years and I don't have any training in the law.  But it is also my understanding  that unless your contract  contains that clause about your heirs, ect, the estate is not obligated by any contract you sign.  I know we have a few people on the board that are in the legal profession, if I'm wrong please let me know.

I think it was Hexe that said her mentor preached never sell a dog for more money then you can immediately come up with in order to reobtain the dog.  

Those words are gold, in my opinion.

I find it interesting that a breeder is damned no matter what road they choose to travel.  We all want a breeder to STAND BY WHAT THEY BREED AND TAKE BACK A PUPPY NO MATTER WHAT because that's the right thing to do. BUT when a clause is written into a contract now they are greedy and horrible for wanting the dog back. This post is a a rarity from what I've experienced. Most people die and family wants absolutely nothing to do with the dogs and they end up on CL for a few bucks or worse the shelter where they die. I know because I've rescued a few of them myself. If I'm being asked to be responsible for the dogs I create, then I should have some say if the owner dies. I don't personally know of any dogs where the owner has titled the dog (working or show) had something happen and the breeder wants the dog back for free. Breeders I work with just want to know where the dog is going and make sure the dog is being welll cared for. Many owners are all to happy to dump a dog when things are not working out and thats ok. But when something like this happens...............

If it was so easy to place an adult titled dog, then why are there titled dogs sitting in rescues? If the dog is part of the estate, then I would petition the executor to detain the dog until something could be worked out. Or take the breeder to court.

I personally would not have such contract and I believe the seller should expressed condolences and should evaluate the situation in which the dogs were after their's owner passing. 
But
 has anybody asked the dead guy what he wants?
Obviously since he / she purchased his dog from the breeder under such agreement, then  he most likely  wished it would be so.
Who are we, or anybody for that matter, to second guess this now deceased person's decision? Legally, morally or ethically?
Now if that person did not read the contract then he should.
Thus passing moral judgments about greed here is silly.
 Prager Hans 

My problem here is the  way the contract is written " first right of refusal", if it's all abut the puppy or dog, why not do away with that satement and say " I will buy back any puppy or dog sold by me for fair market value " fair market value being the highest price  someone else is willing to pay for said dog or puppy. I highly doubt that the seller of said dog or puppy would have a problem selling the dog or puppy back to the breeder if this were the case, unless said seller felt it was not the best home for the dog. Further more why would anybody want to have the breeder rehome a puppy or dog and split the selling price with the breeder. Is it because the breeder is able to make a better decision as to a forever home for the dog, let's face it the dog is being rehomed so the breeder was wrong when they sold the puppy or dog originally. So who's to say they will make the right decision the second time around. Also I would think if it was all about the puppy or dog the breeder would sell the puppy or dog and give all proceeds to the seller,after all you've been paid once already.
 
Jenni, Think about what your saying, subpar puppies,breeders that change their number after they cash the check,really. I can travel less then 30-150 miles in several directions and buy puppies from titled imported dogs. Kennels owned by trainers/breeders with decades of experience,several that are wusv participants,either past or present. No contracts that contain a "first right of refusal clause" or anything else pertaining to who I am allowed to sell or rehome the dog with.

Jenni I don't think all breeders require a dog to be returned because of a health problem but I'm saying it doesn't matter to me either way.  I don't make decisions about what dogs to purchase and who to purchase from based on the health guarantees, it doesn't factor in for me because I accept full responsibility for the dog and for researching lines that I can expect to be healthy.  If there is a fluke, then it is one neither myself nor the breeder could have predicted and I don't feel I should hold the breeder responsible for that nor do I feel owed anything in return, whether that is money, trading dogs, or receiving a second dog for free later on.  I do know of one breeder that requires the original dog to be returned and gave good reasons for this.  The vast majority of dogs this breeder sells go to working and competitive homes so if a dog has a health problem and cannot work, the breeder would prefer to re-home the dog to an appropriate pet home rather than have the buyer receive another dog and possibly try to re-home or euthanize the original dog or just keep it in a kennel all day.

If I die, I expect my family to adhere to the terms in my dogs' contracts (if any) and I've made these wishes known to my family and those I train with.  I guess in a sense I am lucky that the rest of my family including my husband isn't really into dogs like I am so they would not contest first right of refusal clause going back to their breeder(s).  Like I said I don't purchase from breeders that have lots of strings attached but I am fine with a first right of refusal clause so long as this means all we have to do is offer the dog to the breeder at our price. 

I've got a dog right now that several people have asked to purchase from me and if I ever sold him I would offer him back to the breeder at my price and bet that they would be happy with me selling him to one of these other people because they are solid working homes.  Just because the clause is there does not mean that the breeder has to take the dog back or would even have any interest in the dog if the person already has some good prospective homes.

I dont' think you've got the big picture, Prager. Did you read the whole thread? And good thing the law doesn't see it your way, especially for the one's who were left to care for the dogs during the owners hospitalization, who are the deceased owner's choice of caregiver. 

And for BHaugh, it would be the breeder taking the caregivers to court trying to repossess the dogs, not the other way around. And they would lose, according to what has been written on this thread.

This thread was started because a breeder thought she was entitled to take back dogs she bred because the original owner died. SHE DOES NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT. She thought the buy back clause would scare the bereaved into giving up the dogs, except she didn't have the law facts down good enough and has since backed off. Glad the light bulb went off on that one.

And then there is the discussion of motive, why anyone in their right mind would even attempt to do what this breeder wanted to do.