# Reasonable/unreasonable conditions & expectations placed upon a buyer



## Pia Porko (Oct 8, 2008)

Every now and then this topic raises a lot of discussion on Finnish forums and I'd be curious to learn more about the practise in other countries. 

To shed some light on what I'm stating my case: When selling/buying a dog we use the Finnish Kennel Club contract form in which the terms and conditions are pre-defined and bind both the seller and buyer. In Finnish law dogs are considered as ITEMs, so selling a dog is pretty much like selling a car; once the ownership is transferred to another person, the seller has no rights to the dog what so ever. Any additional conditions that hinder the new owner in use of his "new item" are deemed unreasonable. Additional conditions may be stated in the contract but these should not be unreasonable, otherwise the additional conditions will be deemed not binding. For example the seller wishes to use the dog for one litter in the future, this can be put in the contract but unless there is a notable reduction in price of the dog, the condition will be deemed unreasonable and not binding. Another good example of this: I GAVE my old bitch to a new home (did all the necessary paper work although didn't want any money for the dog, just a good home for the rest of her life) and would have liked to put in a condition that if the new owner ever was to give the dog away, I would be the number one prospect. This however would have been unreasonable since it would have hindered the "usage rights of the item" of the new owner after the ownership was transferred, and due to the fact that there was no price reduction (since I gave her for free, maybe I should have paid the new owner to indicate a "reduction") there was no point writing this down since it would not have bound the buyer. 

I'm sorry if my text is a bit confusing, but to make it short: Any additional conditions in the contract must not be unreasonable to the new owner, and if so, a notable price reduction must occur to compensate the new owner for "the trouble".

I'd be interested to hear what kind of contracts (that are still legally binding) are made in other countries, in terms of what kind of conditions and expectations are placed upon the buyer, and also vice versa, what breeders are ready and willing to do (if anything) after ownerhip is transferred, cash in hand and rear lights out of sight.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Here the dogs are under livestock, and have a max worth of 250. At least in a boarding kennel situation.

I used to have contracts, but the problem is they are only as good as the person you are selling the dog to.

With the worth of the dog being so little, it is not cost effective to go after them.

I do agree with most of what you said your law states. If you want a litter out of a dog that I buy, well then the price just dropped dramatically. If you want to reserve the use of my pup as a stud should he be of that quality to you, AND you put it in a contract, then the price just dropped dramatically.

Here in the states, not only are a lot of people control freaks, the idiot buyers are suckered into thinking a huge drawn out contract is a sign of a better breeder.

If I sell you a pup, it is now YOUR dog, and good luck. I am not going to ask for anything, hopefully you will take good care of it, and it will have a good life. Sometimes that does not happen.

I tried to use the law to enforce my contract, have read many others stories about it, and how it cost them way more, and they were not satisfied with the outcome and have come to the conclusion that contracts are pointless. I guarentee nothing, and ask for nothing.


----------



## Pia Porko (Oct 8, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Here the dogs are under livestock, and have a max worth of 250. At least in a boarding kennel situation.


What does this mean insurance-wise? Can you only insure the dog for a maximum value of $250?


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Most contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on. Example, I gave away my APBT female because she's a fighter and can't get along with my GSD. 
I had the new owners sign something to the effect that they'd give her back if they couldn't keep her. Next thing I saw was an ad on craigslist a month later trying to sell her for $200 (I gave her away for free)...when they couldn't sell her, all kinds of drama happened with that and the dog ended up at the pound to be euthed because she got into a fight and bit someone.

The only reason the contract was even useful was because the dog was microchipped. When she bit someone the pound called me because of the chip being in my name. The contract proved useful to prove I no longer owned the dog was was no longer responsible for her. Other than that it was useless.

That being said, I won't buy a dog from a breeder with this mega-long contract that restricts my rights as to what I can and cannot do for the dog. It's my opinion that if I'm paying $1000 for something, then it belongs to me and as long as I take care of it then I should be able to do as I please.


----------



## Pia Porko (Oct 8, 2008)

Ashley Campbell said:


> That being said, I won't buy a dog from a breeder with this mega-long contract that restricts my rights as to what I can and cannot do for the dog. It's my opinion that if I'm paying $1000 for something, then it belongs to me and as long as I take care of it then I should be able to do as I please.


This is kind of what I'm after asking this.. I'm wondering if these restrictions are legal in other countries and how do people react to those/how often breeders try to pull those off. 

However, I think it's kind of sad (??) that the law is so unconditional with what's reasonale and not. If I were ever to use any of my females, I'd like to state in the contract that I DEMAND all puppies must be examined for hips/elbows, backs etc, in order to get valuable information about what my female leaves behind. But it's not possible since it would be unreasonable. Some breeders have actually found a way to go around this. They add 100-200€ to the price of the puppy when they sell it and add a condition in the contract that THEY will pick the dog up and get it examined, no cost for the owner (exept the extra they paid when buying the puppy, they just don't know it, shh )


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

From what I've seen is that at least with the AKC you have a little room to play with if you want to promote say like hip/elbow xrays.
What they can do is the breeder can put the registration on limited until the dog/bitch passes their xrays. That doesn't stop anyone from breeding, but it will stop them from registering offspring with the AKC (though I'm told the UKC will accept limited AKC papers for full registration - not sure though)

At least in the US, the breeder can put whatever they want in the contract and if the buyer breaks the contract it would have to go to court to determine whether or not anything would come of it. There's no rules about what is automatically considered unreasonable since most states consider them livestock or property. 

So if Buyer A buys a bitch from Breeder B and signs a contract that says the dog will be spayed by 12 weeks or the breeder can come take it away - it's not very likely to hold up in court. Most of them don't hold much water in court since the animal is deemed the property of the buyer at that point.


----------



## Pia Porko (Oct 8, 2008)

Ashley Campbell said:


> So if Buyer A buys a bitch from Breeder B and signs a contract that says the dog will be spayed by 12 weeks or the breeder can come take it away - it's not very likely to hold up in court. Most of them don't hold much water in court since the animal is deemed the property of the buyer at that point.


So pretty much the same practise as in Finland. I would have thought (no offense to all you AMERICANS ) that this would be much more complicated since what I've understood US is the promised land of silly lawsuits and almost anything can be pulled of if you have a lawyer good enough. How about in other countries? Any insights?


----------



## Meghan Rabon (Feb 10, 2009)

I bought 3 dogs in Germany. The first 2 (one puppy and one adult) were just sold like property, the breeders were happy that I intended to work the dog but there were no guarantees made. When the puppy was diagnosed with HD at 8 months old, I e-mailed the breeder just to let him know - I wasn't expecting a replacement, I knew that wasn't going to happen but thought he'd want to be made aware of the problem. I never got an e-mail back from him.

With my younger dog (purchased as a puppy) there was no written contract, but the breeder really seemed to care about the puppies and I don't think would have sold her to me if I wasn't going to take good care of her and work her. She also told me that if she ended up with bad hips or other health problems that they'd send me another puppy. Fortunately her health has been outstanding, but I don't doubt that they would have kept their word.

I have heard of all kinds of contracts in America (with stipulations on everything you could possibly think of), and they are only as good as the people on either end of the bargain. I have heard of people on both sides getting screwed regardless of the contract.


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Pia Porko said:


> So pretty much the same practise as in Finland. I would have thought (no offense to all you AMERICANS ) that this would be much more complicated since what I've understood US is the promised land of silly lawsuits and almost anything can be pulled of if you have a lawyer good enough. How about in other countries? Any insights?



It really depends, you're not wrong in that assumption. Money talks and bullshit walks. If the breeder wants to spend big money on a lawyer to get a dog back to obligate a contract that's their prerogative. The breeder could certainly sue the buyer for a breach of contract but it usually gets handled in small claims court (monetary amounts differ by state but to go to small claims there are usually not lawyers present and it has to be beneath like $3000 or whatever the state applies) and there's still no guarantee the judge won't just say that the buyer is now the legal owner and giving up ownership during the transfer at sale implies that the previous owner has absolutely no rights to the property at that point. 

Basically it all comes down to who wants to spend a couple thousand dollars on a lawyer to take it above small claims court (think Judge Judy) just because someone decided they weren't going to xray hips or spay their dog, or feed it XYZ brand dog food exclusively or whatever other provisions that were set forth in the contract. I've seen some contracts that are really that silly. 

With that in mind, anyone willing to sign a contract that states that kind of stuff or things they are not willing to agree to is stupid and deserves to be sued. If you don't agree to the contract, don't sign it and look elsewhere. Just IMO though.


----------



## Candy Eggert (Oct 28, 2008)

Ashley Campbell said:


> With that in mind, anyone willing to sign a contract that states that kind of stuff or things they are not willing to agree to is stupid and deserves to be sued. If you don't agree to the contract, don't sign it and look elsewhere. Just IMO though.


Amen Sistah  Some breeders in the US just shoot themselves in the foot with those types of contracts. Buyer's should look elsewhere when a breeder wants contractual control of every aspect of your pup's life. They want to micromanage every angle of possibilities with "what if's". If you did "x" it must be YOUR fault, if you didn't do "y", they don't have stand behind the dog. It's CYA (and not your "A" either) at it's finest. 

There is a unreasonable-ness to a 4 pages of tiny zero point print that basically gives the breeder everything and you, as the buyer, a dog to train:-\" IMO the breeder gets YOU to test their breeding stock (by working/titling in the sports) and health evaluations of what THEY are producing by requiring 12,24, 36 month joint testing at your expense. And then still charge premium prices for their pups with limited registration?!

I want to know that if I run in to a health problem I can pick up the phone and call the breeder to discuss without having some contract in front me that I have find "page 3, paragraph 2, sub-section d.) to see if this is something a breeder can discuss like an adult.

I don't do contracts, period! If you don't trust me, then don't sell me a dog! I train every day and if I put in the sweat equity in to the dog then the breeder should be happy. I don't need a contract to make me responsible for my dogs.


----------



## Sue DiCero (Sep 2, 2006)

I think the hard thing is when you want to ensure that the puppy will be raised correctly, not overweight, stuck in a crate most of the days, worked too fast, too early, good training support..... and the buyer assures to you the moon all will be correct and lo and behold..... the opposite occurs.


----------



## Pia Porko (Oct 8, 2008)

Sue DiCero said:


> I think the hard thing is when you want to ensure that the puppy will be raised correctly, not overweight, stuck in a crate most of the days, worked too fast, too early, good training support..... and the buyer assures to you the moon all will be correct and lo and behold..... the opposite occurs.


Yep, this has raised some discussion too. At the point of sale the buyer promises you nine good and ten beatiful things. Yet nine out of ten promising young dogs just seem to "disappear", where are their results? Why don't we see those dogs in trials or at least in the training fields? However, there's no point whining since you gave up the pup the minute you accepted a stack of euros for it, so not much more to do than just just suck it up and hope for a better luck next time.


----------



## Pia Porko (Oct 8, 2008)

Ashley Campbell said:


> Basically it all comes down to who wants to spend a couple thousand dollars on a lawyer to take it above small claims court (think Judge Judy) just because someone decided they weren't going to xray hips or spay their dog, or feed it XYZ brand dog food exclusively or whatever other provisions that were set forth in the contract. I've seen some contracts that are really that silly.


Just gotta ask even if I may seem stupid; is Judge Judy for REAL? I've always thought it's just scripted, mindless entertainment :mrgreen:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

The show that we send to europe is the silly one. The one we have here is deadly serious and full of suspense


----------



## Pia Porko (Oct 8, 2008)

Maaaaaan.. gotta have them satellite channels..


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

They are supposed to be real, but I am sure that they get chosen for their utter stupidity.

I like kung fu theater better, but hard to find that anymore. Need to bring that back.


----------



## Pia Porko (Oct 8, 2008)

Gotta admit, I'm hooked on Dr. Phil. Would put him in a bottle and just watch him there if I could :mrgreen:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Oh yes, good old Dr. Phil, mr pop psychologist.


----------



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

I bought one dog under contract (Hi Candy!:lol and I've learned my lesson. Never again. My other dogs were all acquired without contract, only a "bill of sale" in some cases. The breeders are good honest people who stand behind their dogs and trust me to do the right thing, and I have never had problems keeping in touch or receiving help and support when I needed it.

Also IMO - if you have problems with your dogs "disappearing into obscurity"... I'd rather give a dog to an average home where I can trust he will be worked and his needs met, than pass that over in favor of a trainer whom I do not know, simply because he is a trainer. It is so hard to tell about people... Look what happened to Debbie Skinner's Draco, for example.

BTW, the most unreasonable contracts I have seen were from rescues. For any animal. Some are worded in such a way that the rescue retains full ownership of the animal, and can come break into your home at any time (middle of the night even ?!?) with police presence to take the animal back, if they feel the contract has been breached. Also a list of restrictions a mile long, stipulating exactly what you may and may not do with the critter. Because of this, I will never adopt anything from a rescue...


----------



## Candy Eggert (Oct 28, 2008)

Anna Kasho said:


> I bought one dog under contract (Hi Candy!:lol and I've learned my lesson. Never again. My other dogs were all acquired without contract, only a "bill of sale" in some cases. The breeders are good honest people who stand behind their dogs and trust me to do the right thing, and I have never had problems keeping in touch or receiving help and support when I needed it.
> 
> Also IMO - if you have problems with your dogs "disappearing into obscurity"... I'd rather give a dog to an average home where I can trust he will be worked and his needs met, than pass that over in favor of a trainer whom I do not know, simply because he is a trainer. It is so hard to tell about people... Look what happened to Debbie Skinner's Draco, for example.
> 
> BTW, the most unreasonable contracts I have seen were from rescues. For any animal. Some are worded in such a way that the rescue retains full ownership of the animal, and can come break into your home at any time (middle of the night even ?!?) with police presence to take the animal back, if they feel the contract has been breached. Also a list of restrictions a mile long, stipulating exactly what you may and may not do with the critter. Because of this, I will never adopt anything from a rescue...


Please excuse my previous post in this thread.....turkey stupor  

Regarding breeder's with overly obsessive contracts (Hi Anna :-$) I've seen some that border on ridicilous. And I've seen some that are fair and equitable to the buyer, puppy and breeder. Since I don't buy puppies on contract (Hi Anna :smile: ) I have no first hand experience to speak of. I do agree that some working homes are not always the best homes, as we've all seen, ie Drako. 

Most breeders that I know of work hard to produce good dogs and some times it just doesn't work out. They try their best to match the right dog with the right person. Even with or without a contract, I think what works best for all concerned is a open line of communication ;-) It seems so simple doesn't it?


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Sue DiCero said:


> I think the hard thing is when you want to ensure that the puppy will be raised correctly, not overweight, stuck in a crate most of the days, worked too fast, too early, good training support..... and the buyer assures to you the moon all will be correct and lo and behold..... the opposite occurs.


I understand that, except how does a piece of paper ensure that? It really doesn't, it might give you some legal recourse but a piece of paper isn't going to force anyone to feed their dog, take care of it, etc. As someone else mentioned, the contract is only as good as the people signing it. 

If someones going to neglect or abuse an animal, they'll do it whether there's a piece of paper telling them that it's wrong or not. It's about trying to find honest people to sell pups to, and if the person is honest, then you don't need a contract to keep them honest.

Rescues have cornered the market on writing up contracts though. I will NEVER go to a rescue like that for an animal, money comes out of my bank acct to pay for the animal, then it's my property and not theirs anymore, so yeah I'd never sign on something like that. Good example whomever brought it up!


----------

