Breeder contracts

 While going through links looking for contracts I like, I came across this one from the Kerry Blue Terrier Foundation, which is a pretty good looking one, I thought.

 

http://www.kerryblues.info/FOUNDATION/FORMS/DOGCONTRACT.HTML

Here's how I understand the situation, why contracts do not stand up in court.

In the legal arena, dogs are considered property. These cases fall under the domain of property law. One of the basic tenents of property law is that once you buy something, it is yours. The seller no longer has any control over or interest in the property. Can you think of any other property that after you sell it you have a legal right to tell the new owner what they can/can not do with it?

If you write a contract that conflicts with the basic tenents of property law, it is not going to be considered legally binding. You can't write a contract that conflicts with the law. Well, you can write it but it is not valid.

Another point to consider is damages. If you take someone to court over a dog, what they are going to be looking at is your damages. If you sold a dog to someone, took their money, and then do something with the dog that is against your contract, how does that cause damages to you? You have been paid a fair price for the dog already. We are talking property here, damages have to be monetary.

Really, the only way for a breeder to keep any control is to keep the dog on a co-ownership. Or not turn over the papers and complete the sale until certain conditions are met like the dog is neutered.

This is true in some states. This is why a contract must be written by an attny . For the reasons in my lengthy posts I will continue to use a contract to provide as much protection for any puppy brought into the world by my action.

Co Ownership is a prickly proposition. You are legally liable and can be included in law suits addressed to the co owner.  If they do not pay vet bills or are careless and a dog bite happens you and your property are now at risk.  I co own on one dog and hate it If we could buy the other owners out we would in a heart beat. And they are dear friends.... I will never let my husband talk me into another co ownership under any circumstances.  And Co Ownership is not true control. If I opt to neuter the dog I co own without the permission of the other owners they have zero recourse against me. By the same toke if they bred him prior to his obtaining his championship or testing I have zero recourse except to with hold signature on registrations. That could affect the price possible for the pups but would not change the fact there are pups.

The argument against using contracts reminds me of the arguments against health testing unless using a DNA test. In that argument some how not being able to fully rule out the existence of a possible disease or disorder makes teasting moot and un necessary. 

To each his own.

Bonita of Bwana

Bonita of Bwana

The argument against using contracts reminds me of the arguments against health testing unless using a DNA test. In that argument some how not being able to fully rule out the existence of a possible disease or disorder makes teasting moot and un necessary. 

Just to clarify, I personally am not arguing for or against contracts and I don't know anyone who argues against contracts, or what they should say or when they should be used.  ALL I am interested in is to what extent they are legally enforceable.

In Kle's thread you will see I strongly encouraged drawing up a very explicit contract outlining the terms, but in this case I see (and have always seen) the contract as a way for the breeder and buyer (or co-owner) to make dang sure they agree, not as something that is legally binding on its own.

If it helps to make my position clear, the initial reason I ask is b/c on another board, a member wanted to do something that would breach her contract - she did not want to neuter her male dog until he was 2 and the contract stated he had to be neutered at 6 months.  The vibe from certain posters was that if you don't adhere to the contract the breeder can somehow re-claim the dog.  Personally, I think that would be a very expensive and lengthy process for the breeder that might not even end in their favor because as samshine says, a dog is property and really, who can tell someone else they have to neuter their dog at a young age? I told the poster if they did not neuter their dog, likely nothing would become of it other than a soured relationship with that breeder.

 See, and in that case? I'd just suggest the person call the breeder and TALK about it. MUCH less stressful. :P

Pwca

 See, and in that case? I'd just suggest the person call the breeder and TALK about it. MUCH less stressful. :P

Exactly, since she is not planning to breed her dog, just does not think it is healthy to neuter at that age (I hate that anytime someone says they won't neuter people automatically assume they want to breed).  But the question came up of whether the contracts are enforceable at all.

The concept is pretty simple.  You decide which avenue you are going  to pursue,  if damages are the end goal then you would normally go through small claims.  This is where a contract becomes important. If you have stipulated and agreed that any legal issue will be settled in your county / state, then you file with your local court house.  A notice is sent to the owner. Should they decline to show up then a default judgement is normally entered in favor of the petitioner.  Once a judgement has been reached if necessary a garnishment may be used to collect the amount ordered.

If you want to re claim the dog, say they are breeding the heck out of it  , abusing it  whatever.You will have an attny, either the one you may have on retainer or one that you will hopefully locate at the time with experience in animal cases and contract law, ( not simply animal law)  Your attny will bring the suit in civil court.  The judge will then want proof of the breech. Statements from officials brought in to show the abuse or copies of ads placed and registrations of the puppies , reports that will show the number of breeding's are harmful or that you have a clearly worded clause about the number of litters a bitch from your kennel and breeding program is allowed to have.  The owner will then argue emotional attachment or financial investment. If you can prove the dog is a kennel dog in it's new "home" it becomes difficult to prove emotional arguments.  Without the clearly stated and initialed clauses that show the owner lied to you and committed a fraud while convincing you that there was a meeting of the minds , the judge may have his hands tied. AND Unless your contract also requires the loser pay legal fees you will be deeply in pocket .  Should you get the right judge and right atty you can request the return of the dog plus damages. If you get a moderate judge be willing to make a choice,  dog or money.   And if you are really unlucky and you get one of "those" judges  it can be a crap shoot.

Should everything go as you hope and the dog is to be returned to you then you may have to make the arrangements to pick it up and transport it back to your home.  They would be required to turn over paperwork and records relating to the dog, primarily the vet care, but possibly any puppies that were produced.  Here is the really rotten part, even if you get the dog back you would not be guaranteed that they do not have puppies from this animal that still give them access to your pedigree    Contracts are important if only to provide leverage with a  regular type of owner or a BYB who may cave rather than deal with potential legal fees. If you are up against a puppy miller who are known to lie cheat and basically steal to get access to good bloodlines then you are in it for the principle and there is never an easy way to establish principle.

Bonita of Bwana