Dog price question - Page 3

Well, hunger, nowhere in her post does Melinda indicate that this 'has been ongoing'--she says only that she's been trying to contact Granville all day, as in ONE day, as in today. Hardly 'ongoing', that. 

And while I ABSOLUTELY can appreciate Ms. Clark's concern for the dog, and her desire to get assurance from Granville that said dog was still in Granville's possession and there had not been any discussions with anyone regarding actually buying the dog, I think demanding an instantaneous response is simply unreasonable.  Just because one can compose and post an ad here doesn't mean one is in a setting where it's appropriate to get into what obviously would be a very intense and emotional phone conversation, or an in-depth e-mail or text exchange at that same time.  A discussion such as Ms. Clark and Granville would be having certainly would not be something one would enter into while at work, or while traveling, or while one's children weren't yet in bed, for example.

As for what you personally do and do not want in any dog you purchase, you do realize that the Europeans aren't doing any DM testing on any of those WUSV champions or parents of those pink-papered pups, right? Hell, you'd be hard pressed to get a European breeder to even acknowledge that DM exists, let alone could be present in their lines. Like I said--at least Granville tested her bitch; that places her in the minority of breeders in the US at the moment, and I don't mean 'backyard breeders'...I mean the same breeders who will be competing for a spot on the WUSV team, and ones who will be sending dogs to the Sieger shows in the US.

A breeder striving to improve their stock takes the best of what they have, and breeds it to better, and then hopefully is knowledgeable enough to be able to pick out the best of those offspring, and later on breed that offspring to even better yet. There's no shame in that--that's how it's done; a good breeder always tries to breed 'up' in quality.  Your knocking Granville on the DM result and the OFA Fair was a cheap shot, simply because it was apropos of nothing with regard to this particular topic.  Hopefully both parties let their emotions decelerate overnight and the situation can be resolved with a reasonable conversation between the two.

I do thank those that have come on here to be supportive. 
Granville...it was NOT my intention to throw you under the bus, nor do I feel I have done that. I have not said 1 word about your dogs, testing, breeding program, etc. I saw your post, I reached out to you multiple times to offer my help by purchasing Berlin back if the situation was needed and wanted to talk with you about taking the puppies to help you place them. But none of that got discussed because you won't contact me. Which I don't understand. You have been in constant contact with me since you took Berlin home, now I'm not worth talking to? I have made my offer to you re: Berlin. If he's not for sale, that's great. See, a simple email or phone call to say that would have avoided all of this. But even suggesting he "may" be for sale is not going to go unnoticed. I am his breeder and I care very much for him. I am not one to wash my hands of the dog once they go to their new homes. As several have stated, a "heads up" on your post would have been nice. 
Melinda Clark
vom Gildaf German Shepherds

I'm with Hexe, still fail to see where Granville has any obligation to tell every breeder of her dogs that she has a dog for sale.  Which dog is for sale is between Granville and only the breeder of the dog for sale.  Its not Granville's fault that a breeder jumped the gun (after just less than 24 hours!? of not hearing from Granville) and started accusing her.

She doesn't have any obligation until something happens. However, you have to keep in mind how something looks on the internet is not always how it really is, and expect that people will overreact, misconstrue, etc. Therefore, as I said before, a simple "don't freak...I'm not going to sell Berlin w/out telling you" would be a really easy way to put a stop to something like this before it ever happened. Though not obligated, as she has in no way violated her contract as of yet, it would've been a good means of preventative maintenance;-)

actually the owner of the dog isn't obligated to do anything at all including contact the breeder, or inform the breeder that he is selling or did sell the dog, or the contact information for the new owner.  I've found out "the hard way" that these contracts worded such as this one is (and such as my  own has been for many years) is not legally binding.  Morally and ethically binding, yes - but that means it's up to the breeder, and the buyer if they choose to honor their obligations spelled out in the signed contract.  If either chooses not to honor it, it's not legally binding and no they don't "have to".  Possession and legal ownership is binding.  The owner paid for the dog, his name is on the registration of the dog, he is in possession of the dog and has the dog's vet records and license etc in his name.  The breeder won't be able to do ANYTHING AT ALL if the owner chooses to sell the dog and not contact the breeder at all about it, or not provide the information "required" in the contract.

I just found out my contract is the same - worthless in the case that the owner of the dog chooses not to honor the signed/written/agreed upon contract.  In my case, the owner of two dogs purchased from me, passed away suddenly from cancer.  So suddenly that she did not make arrangements for the dogs, and I didn't have a chance to contact her to see that the placement of the dogs was mentioned in her will.  There was no will, or if there was, it didn't include the dogs.

So I was left hanging, dealing with "friends" of the deceased owner who were in possession of the dogs, who are anti-breeder, anti-schutzhund, anti-kennel, anti-intact dogs and etc.  It was easily apparent to me, that if they had a choice I would not get the dogs back.  So it was up to the solicitor of her estate to decide.  I thought that would work out, since I had two contracts with similar wording to the ones mentioned - I faxed those contracts and waited to hear.  Heard nothing, so had my attorney contact the solicitor who told him "not legally binding, the contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on, and they would not hold up in court".  They requested a letter explaining why I should get the dogs back, which I sent to them - but no response.  At this point it's clear I'm not getting the dogs back and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.  I'm now in the process of having my dog-savvy attorney re-write my contract so this never happens again. 

molly

I'm not going to get between the breeder and the seller but doesn't the seller still have the right to determine the price as long as the dog is offered to the breeder first?  Maybe I'm wrong, I just thought that is how most of these contracts work.  I don't think people should be obligated to just give their dogs back, if a lot of work has gone into the dog but something has come up in the person's life or the dog just isn't a fit (but still a good dog) I think the owner should be able to determine a fair price before the breeder reclaims the dog.  Not taking sides here, just curious...

Um, just because the opposing side claims it is not legally binding, does not mean they are right or even believe they are right. 

Old tactic to insist the other side has no case. 

An option agreed upon when consideration is exchanged is usually legally binding and enforceable. Whether it is worth pursuing financially or emotionally is up to each party. 

Don't just believe the other side's attorney, they don't work for you.

This legal guide was written by an attorney regarding contracts for the sale of purebred dogs.  Regardless of breed it may help-it includes provisions about the return of dogs:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:MKwV0XGH_fYJ:www.newfclubseattle.org/Contract%2520Summary.pdf+COURT+OF+APPEALS+contract+requires+dog+to+be+returned&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh3HumF1V_hf9u7z8o03xlhIQa2vKHPvEZS4daH6EXQsgCQR4a-dy_xDDbv0JTvoNsMFEKbig4fu_yRaRCWXTGP-Wb4bNKVm0T8n76DlKW-chW4czDLN4RV_ZsfCvAsUsCVA-Ga&sig=AHIEtbSqR6dUQX8WyaoJF-QWtIXmPPh4wQ&pli=1

a QUICK search of cases does not reveal that this option to repurchase has been ruled unenforceable even though conditions on ownership of property are not favored generally. Almost every state has breeders and rescue organizations that have these clauses and yet I cannot find any cases that rule against them.  I have seen cases in small claims, etc where the rescue organization has successfully sued when the dog is not returned.  Limited breeding rights, for example also place conditions even though a purchaser has paid for the animal and I have not seen those overturned either.

Thanks Molly...that input was great. And thanks Hunger for the legal link. I did contact my attorney today so that I can work on my contract to make it more legally binding...although I realize once a dog is sold...it is considered property. I guess I'm old fashioned and count on morals and ethics. I have said over and over I'm too trusting. I would hate to change that way about myself because I want to trust people and believe that what they say is word. My own lessons to be learned I guess. I have a passion and compassion for this breed and my dogs (this includes the puppies I sell)...that doesn't always jive with every buyer I guess. While I try very hard to do a thorough screening process of each potential home, I guess they won't all turn out to be what we think they will be. 
Melinda