This is a placeholder text
Group text
by beetree on 06 September 2011 - 00:09
Just stay healthy Isachev, LOL
If the limp doesn't get better, you might keep a thought about checking for tick diseases.
If the limp doesn't get better, you might keep a thought about checking for tick diseases.
by Jenni78 on 06 September 2011 - 01:09
Is that a hint, isachev? I'll do it; bring 'em over. I did Anza's on Saturday...I don't remember putting in the contract that I would trim all their nails for life! LOL I don't mind though, and it's a great excuse to see them regularly.
Ezra, Ezra, Ezra...such a drama queen.
Back to Beetree vs. Molly.
Ezra, Ezra, Ezra...such a drama queen.
Back to Beetree vs. Molly.
by eichenluft on 06 September 2011 - 01:09
Yes Ms tree - the older dog is spayed. She had a health problem, (one that was not covered anywhere in my contract by the way), and despite that due to the relationship I had with the owner, the younger dog was given (for no money) as a replacement for the older one, which the owner of course, kept, continued to work, and titled. The owner is/was not a breeder, and I believe her older male was still intact (not sure about that, but think so) - so it is possible the younger one is spayed as well. Not sure about that. But if she isn't spayed, at nearly 2 years old - and the owner was in the process of titling her in Schutzhund, I'd have to guess that it wasn't the owner's wish to get her spayed. Wouldn't you think? But spayed or not, health issues or not (the older dog has some health issues) I'd still take the dogs back and expect that my contract would be honored by the owner or the owner's family, heir or solicitor, should something like this happen (the dogs need to be placed for any reason according to my contract).
Regardless of what happens in this case - I have definately learned "the hard way" with this, and my contract will certainly be legally binding for each and every puppy I sell from now on.
molly
Regardless of what happens in this case - I have definately learned "the hard way" with this, and my contract will certainly be legally binding for each and every puppy I sell from now on.
molly
by beetree on 06 September 2011 - 01:09
Bottomlline, then, Wanda needs to tell us who has what parts. This should be interesting. However, I DO keep my word.
Oh, and let's note that the original agreement isn't entirely about the current dogs, you want it to carry over whenever you make a trade?
Oh, and let's note that the original agreement isn't entirely about the current dogs, you want it to carry over whenever you make a trade?
by Prager on 06 September 2011 - 01:09
The problem is that there are several levels of this and the disagreement is between these levels.
1. What would I do.
2. What does the buyer wants,
3. what does the seller wants
4. What does the seller believes what the buyer want's.
5. greed,
6. ethics
7. morals
8 legality.
9. financials....
Everybody here has good heart and believes that they are trying to figure out what is the best for the dogs. I personally do not think that it is important what anybody believes except the now deceased owner. That is why there is disagreement. And that is why we have contracts .I would never dare to second guess that. I have had people saying to me in similar situation. Oh yes we will keep him and then year later when I have driven by I stopped to see what is up with the dog and I was told ,..Yes he was a great dog, we loved him, but now when his master is deceased we believe he was sad and it was better PTS. I was furious and literary sick to my stomach, to hear that. This was 6 years old dog. I hope that no one puts me down when I am sad.
Also I think that you can not compare boarding and what is going to happen with the dogs if the owner dies.
Yes owner may trust to someone to take care of their dogs for boarding but not for the life after his/hers death.
I'd say if the owner would asked me that he /she wants me to take care of the dogs after the death I would do what ever it takes for me to take care of the dogs.
That said that would include to consider leave the dogs in current situation where the dogs are, unless I would be told not to do it. Isn't that part of what first right of refusal means.
Fist right of refusal is not necessarily:" If I am going to be able to make a buck" it can also could mean:" if I do not like where the dogs will be for they sake."
As I have said before I do not have such clause in my contract. But emotionally I think that all the dogs are mine even when you buy them. I have repod a dog or two in not exactly legal way when I have seen that they are being abused. Even across the country's borders. I do not know, I think to respect the wish of a dead person may be and often is hard to do but it is an honorable thing to do.
Prager Hans
1. What would I do.
2. What does the buyer wants,
3. what does the seller wants
4. What does the seller believes what the buyer want's.
5. greed,
6. ethics
7. morals
8 legality.
9. financials....
Everybody here has good heart and believes that they are trying to figure out what is the best for the dogs. I personally do not think that it is important what anybody believes except the now deceased owner. That is why there is disagreement. And that is why we have contracts .I would never dare to second guess that. I have had people saying to me in similar situation. Oh yes we will keep him and then year later when I have driven by I stopped to see what is up with the dog and I was told ,..Yes he was a great dog, we loved him, but now when his master is deceased we believe he was sad and it was better PTS. I was furious and literary sick to my stomach, to hear that. This was 6 years old dog. I hope that no one puts me down when I am sad.
Also I think that you can not compare boarding and what is going to happen with the dogs if the owner dies.
Yes owner may trust to someone to take care of their dogs for boarding but not for the life after his/hers death.
I'd say if the owner would asked me that he /she wants me to take care of the dogs after the death I would do what ever it takes for me to take care of the dogs.
That said that would include to consider leave the dogs in current situation where the dogs are, unless I would be told not to do it. Isn't that part of what first right of refusal means.
Fist right of refusal is not necessarily:" If I am going to be able to make a buck" it can also could mean:" if I do not like where the dogs will be for they sake."
As I have said before I do not have such clause in my contract. But emotionally I think that all the dogs are mine even when you buy them. I have repod a dog or two in not exactly legal way when I have seen that they are being abused. Even across the country's borders. I do not know, I think to respect the wish of a dead person may be and often is hard to do but it is an honorable thing to do.
Prager Hans
by Prager on 06 September 2011 - 02:09
Have you seen a movie:The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada.
Go to see it. It is about promise to take care of wish of a person who died.
The movie is about many things, but to me it is about honor.
Prager Hans
Go to see it. It is about promise to take care of wish of a person who died.
The movie is about many things, but to me it is about honor.
Prager Hans
by beetree on 06 September 2011 - 02:09
You know Prager, I just thought of something. When I used to rent. Finally after many years we bought a house and moved. At the leaving, the good landlords balked at returning our due monies, (her mostly) and said we had left with their washing machine. I was livid and asked her to ask her lawyer what brand of washing machine she thought she owned? She got back to me and agreed to give us our due monies.
I don't think # 4 should matter at all. Trying to guess what people want never, ever works, trust me on this! Just do the right thing.
I don't think # 4 should matter at all. Trying to guess what people want never, ever works, trust me on this! Just do the right thing.
by hexe on 06 September 2011 - 03:09
beetree wrote:
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!
beetree, you keep chirping on and on about 'controlling the DNA', but that makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever--since Molly is the breeder of the two dogs in contention, wouldn't that therefore mean that she already HAS access to 'the DNA' these dogs are carrying? (And now we've learned that at least one of the two dogs is not sexually intact, making the 'controlling the DNA' tune even more ridiculous.)
Secondly, your dismissal of the breeder wishing to keep track of every dog they'd ever bred doesn't really fit with how this particular breeder is known to be when it comes to dogs she's sold or placed: how many breeders can you name who hold an annual 'family reunion' for the dogs that were purchased or adopted from this kennel and their owners--including rescues which were bred by other people--or host an email list so the buyers and adopters of dogs from this kennel can communicate with each other as well as with the breeder? Regardless of your opinion of Molly as a breeder or a person, anyone accusing her of not being interested in the dogs from her kennel after they've been sold or adopted would be lying for the sole purpose of discrediting her.
This particular situation is complicated in a large part because the deceased woman seems to have had no reason to suspect she might not return home when she entered the hospital; I do hope that the issue can be resolved quickly and amicably, as a tribute to the deceased woman who both parties here called a friend. I'm sure she would not want people warring over her dogs so long as it could be established that they're safe and in good hands, and the breeder is kept apprised as to where they will be living and with whom.
If this thread doesn't prompt everyone to get their affairs in order, and spell out their intentions for their animals IN A WILL, I don't know what possibly can spur you to do so.
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!
beetree, you keep chirping on and on about 'controlling the DNA', but that makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever--since Molly is the breeder of the two dogs in contention, wouldn't that therefore mean that she already HAS access to 'the DNA' these dogs are carrying? (And now we've learned that at least one of the two dogs is not sexually intact, making the 'controlling the DNA' tune even more ridiculous.)
Secondly, your dismissal of the breeder wishing to keep track of every dog they'd ever bred doesn't really fit with how this particular breeder is known to be when it comes to dogs she's sold or placed: how many breeders can you name who hold an annual 'family reunion' for the dogs that were purchased or adopted from this kennel and their owners--including rescues which were bred by other people--or host an email list so the buyers and adopters of dogs from this kennel can communicate with each other as well as with the breeder? Regardless of your opinion of Molly as a breeder or a person, anyone accusing her of not being interested in the dogs from her kennel after they've been sold or adopted would be lying for the sole purpose of discrediting her.
This particular situation is complicated in a large part because the deceased woman seems to have had no reason to suspect she might not return home when she entered the hospital; I do hope that the issue can be resolved quickly and amicably, as a tribute to the deceased woman who both parties here called a friend. I'm sure she would not want people warring over her dogs so long as it could be established that they're safe and in good hands, and the breeder is kept apprised as to where they will be living and with whom.
If this thread doesn't prompt everyone to get their affairs in order, and spell out their intentions for their animals IN A WILL, I don't know what possibly can spur you to do so.
by 4pack on 06 September 2011 - 04:09
The following is quoted by Molly from another forum. Which is it Molly, do you or do you NOT know if the second female is spayed? Your description below is what made me believe this was money motivated. Who cares if the dog gets spayed? Will this put a stop to the breed as we know it? Or are you just seething at the thought of a titled female not churning out the next A-Z alphabet for you?
I'm also not buying the fact that a Sch person with 4 dogs entrusts an anti-Sch, anti-working dog "friend" to care for her dogs. But you do paint a very PITAish portrait, that the majority of working dog folks would jump on the bandwagon to take your side, without knowing the full story.
I'm just curious as to which forum you are lying to?
Mod removed, it is against the TOS to cross post out of other forums without those forums consent.
I'm also not buying the fact that a Sch person with 4 dogs entrusts an anti-Sch, anti-working dog "friend" to care for her dogs. But you do paint a very PITAish portrait, that the majority of working dog folks would jump on the bandwagon to take your side, without knowing the full story.
I'm just curious as to which forum you are lying to?
Mod removed, it is against the TOS to cross post out of other forums without those forums consent.
by eichenluft on 06 September 2011 - 06:09
4 Pack - another moron. I'm sorry that you can't understand, and again - it really doesn't matter what you think. The owner signed two contracts for dogs I bred, as well as verbally understood and agreed to give me first right of refusal to get the dogs back if FOR ANY REASON they needed to be placed. This is something that has nothing to do with you morons who insist on bringing drama and gossip to the threads on this forum.
I don't lie, 4 Pack. I have no need to. I assume the younger female is intact, because the owner had her in training for her Schh titles. I don't know that for sure, but I assume she's intact. Intact or not, I honor my end of the contract and go well beyond my written contract - for instance with the older female who came up with health problems not covered in my contract - she kept the older female, continued to title her (UDX, agility, and Schutzhund) and got the younger one for free (still under my signed contract).
The owner left the dogs in the care of friends - the two dogs in question were, I'm told, left in her own home with someone coming in to care for them while she was away. These friends now have the dogs in their permanent care, and are choosing to disregard the owner's wishes - the proof of which is in the two signed contracts..
anyway that's it for me, morons take it away and have at it.
ps isn't copying a post not written by you, from another forum against the TOS here? Moderator?
molly
I don't lie, 4 Pack. I have no need to. I assume the younger female is intact, because the owner had her in training for her Schh titles. I don't know that for sure, but I assume she's intact. Intact or not, I honor my end of the contract and go well beyond my written contract - for instance with the older female who came up with health problems not covered in my contract - she kept the older female, continued to title her (UDX, agility, and Schutzhund) and got the younger one for free (still under my signed contract).
The owner left the dogs in the care of friends - the two dogs in question were, I'm told, left in her own home with someone coming in to care for them while she was away. These friends now have the dogs in their permanent care, and are choosing to disregard the owner's wishes - the proof of which is in the two signed contracts..
anyway that's it for me, morons take it away and have at it.
ps isn't copying a post not written by you, from another forum against the TOS here? Moderator?
molly
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top