Greedy or Not? - Page 1

I can't reply to the original thread for some reason.

Hexe,

I'm still waiting for confirmation about the intactness of the two dogs Wanda is caring for, I don't think you read it carefully. One of the dogs isn't even in the original buyers contract, it is a replacement. Lots of "I don't knows" from Ms. I'mJustSoConcerned.  And even if one was spayed, the other one must be a real goodie, $$$$. She couldn't exactly take one dog and leave the other, now could she?

Having a BarBQ is good business. I never said she wasn't a shrewd business person. Just a lousy human being who preys on the emotionally distraught. All that crap about her rights and she was full of it. Who's the liar? Huh? Seems to me she's got a good network full of people who buy into her controlling crap, so who's going to bother with my moronic opinion? I'm not about discrediting anybody, just talking about doing the right thing here. If there is a black spot on Molly's character, it is her own doing.

I suppose you all would like me to remain naive, forever. That wool fell from my eyes a while back.  Molly moves dogs for money, hunny, the pro bono dog case, now and then, is just good business.  LOL

Bee, I noticed that also. One post was she bought two dogs, then one was a replacement for the first dog with health problems. I also found this part a little conflicting.

Niesa, your description is exactly what I assumed was the way things would turn out. There was no will, at least not mentioning the dogs, as far as I know. If there is a will, I'm sure it doesn't mention any specific names in it. As far as I know, there is only one person mentioned in any document signed by the owner about the disposition of the dogs, and that is me in my contract signed by the owner.

The friends certainly mean well, and I'm sure they want to do "what the owner would have wanted" in their minds. But their opinions are in fact anti-breeder, anti-schutzhund training, anti-kenneling, anti-breeding - and they are not persons who own this breed or should be owning working-bred GSDs. They got a few very nice dogs for" free" and now they attack the breeder for wanting the dogs back?
Basically the dogs were left in the care of friends when the owner went to the hospital. Owner was certainly not expecting to pass away after her surgery. When she passed away in the hospital/nursing home, the friends took it upon themselves to continue to take care of the dogs "as she would have wanted", disregarding my wishes to get the dogs back, or my interest in them, or my signed contracts. AND, they are disregarding what the owner would have really wanted for the dogs. The dogs are working dogs, who want to work and enjoy working. The owner worked them every day and accomplished many things with them. The younger dog was on her way to Schh titles.  Now they are living in pet homes with pet owners who never owned or wanted to own,working GSDs
The solicitor initially seemed interested in getting me the dogs back. They requested my contracts which I provided for them, then they stopped communication and told my attorney that my contracts would not hold up in court. I can only assume that the "friends" communicated with the solicitors about how the dogs should NOT go back to me, and how the owner would never have wanted that etc.

I sure wish I could be confident in my contracts or case holding up in court. Because if there was any way I could get the dogs back (in a legal manner) I would certainly be taking steps to do that. Because the best place for the dogs is with me, someone who has their best interests at heart, and someone who knows and understands the needs of this kind of breed and dog.

molly 

I wonder who would honor these stupid contracts on behalf of the buyer if the breeder unexpectedly passed?

Sorry guys, that my post on the original thread tweeked it all out of shape. No idea how that happened and it wont let me edit so...it is what it is I guess. It may be removed anyway say the mods.

I think you can post a link to the other thread?

 I,ve been reading this post and have answered it once on the 1st page so i,m amuzed by the drama. I want to throw in this wrench in the gears and get your thought ,s on it. The train of thought here seems to have two sides Greed or not  seems to be the biggest question so here is my quaestion.

  The last 2 litters I,ve had I,ve placed the pups in working homes these arent people i,ve asked to "Please take my pups" these are people that either Knew I was creating a litter or I had been told they were looking for a pup and talked to them.

These pups are given to the new owners free of charge with shots and health checks with the agreement that for any reason if the owner decides latter that the pup doesn,t work for them has health issue,s or no matter the reason before it can be rehomed or sold I  have first right of refusale to reclaim ownership of the dog or pup. The owner gets the pup with full registration in there name. I don,t give pup,s to just any one that ask,s There all in working homes except for 2 and there in good homes that I visit often. 

  

SO am I greedy or concerened for the placement of pup,s that I create with my kennel name on them? 



  

I don't think any one would argue right of first refusal Bob, in my mind regardless of contract it would be a courtesy thing.   I have seen that clause mis-used on both sides of the contract, owners that disregard it and breeders that convince the owner it means the dog taken back for free or for a small amount.