# Doesn't this sound odd?



## KPoos (Aug 29, 2009)

Uhh yeah that does sound a bit odd.


----------



## PonkiPoodles (Feb 25, 2009)

Thanks KPoos, cause to me it basically meant if she felt like you are not doing a good job grooming or if you can no longer keep your dog etc. you'll have to pay her!?!?! That's just a little crazy if you ask me!:wacko:


----------



## roxy25 (Dec 18, 2008)

yes, that is odd


----------



## Cdnjennga (Jul 30, 2009)

Agreed, very odd, never heard of that in a contract before!


----------



## plumcrazy (Sep 11, 2009)

I managed a humane society in Bismarck for 4 years and we had a clause similar to that in our contract (which was drawn up and approved by our attorney). The purpose of that clause (for us, anyway) was to ensure spay/neuter and humane treatment. We wanted adopters to know that if they chose to not have them sterilized or to neglect or mistreat their pets and we were made aware of it, they would pay us a certain amount (I think ours was, like, $500). The problem with a clause like that is, unless someone reports abuse or neglect, we'd likely never know about it - and it was our dearest desire that every pet we adopted out went to responsible people (but sometimes they can be sneaky that way!)

We would never pursue it unless an animal was truly being abused or neglected (late or poor groomings wouldn't be an issue, but to let a dog get matted to the point of constant pain would have been a cause for concern, for example) And even then we probably would have tried to work with the owner, providing additional education and resources before taking legal action. Sometimes it was just a case of being uneducated rather than malicious intent.

Does the contract say you HAVE to return the dog to the breeder if you can't keep it, or does it give you an option to place the dog with another home with the breeder's permission? That's how our contract read at the humane society - we insisted the pet come back to us UNLESS we were able to approve a re-homing into a new family. It's a lot less stressful for a pet to go from one loving home into another loving home rather than making a "pit-stop" back at the shelter (or in this case the breeder's home) and then having to readjust AGAIN when a new home is found...

I would think that if the breeder is reasonable, that clause would ONLY be used in extremely rare cases when one of her dogs is actually being abused/mistreated/neglected, etc... and if the owner is responsible they shouldn't fear signing it because they know that would never happen anyway...

Good luck!!

Barb


----------



## bigredpoodle (Sep 13, 2009)

The part about paying the breeder 1500.00 is just CRAZY.


----------



## Poodle Lover (Mar 24, 2008)

This is the oddest contract that I've seen. I wouldn't be comfortable signing it.


----------



## Harley_chik (Nov 7, 2008)

I think breeder's absolutely should include a clause like that if the puppy is on a spay/neuter contract and the puppy buyer doesn't comply. The other (bogus) registries make it too easy for some one to breed an AKC puppy that's sold on limited registration or is co-owned, etc. I don't think it's a bad idea to include something like that, in case they can no longer care for the dog it has to come back to you or go to someone you approve of. There are over zealous animal rights activist will do their best to ruin a breeder if one of their dogs is dumped in rescue, w/o even giving the breeder a chance to do the right thing and come pick up the dog. People don't even honor their written word anymore, so I see nothing wrong w/ a breeder trying to protect the idividual dog and their reputation. However, if they are going to fine you for any little thing like not using the right brand of vaccines or flea repellent, that's is crazy.


----------



## cuddleparty (Apr 27, 2009)

sounds like

A - they dont want you to mess up
B - they want to ensure you are serious about it (or pay the price, literally)
or 
C - they are trying to make a buck
or
D - all of the above

Everyone has the right to strike or amend provisions within a contract and negotiate from there. If you feel that this is the "right" breeder for you and they have what you are looking for, then do not be deterred by all the legal jargon. Alot of people just put these clauses in there to protect themselves and their business. Often times, it doesn't mean a thing...

I don't think it has anything to do with how well you groom your pup, etc.. unless there is something about that in the contract. It is usually there to cover the bigger details ie/you will seek immediate medical attention for your pup if he becomes ill, etc..


----------



## PonkiPoodles (Feb 25, 2009)

plumcrazy said:


> Does the contract say you HAVE to return the dog to the breeder if you can't keep it, or does it give you an option to place the dog with another home with the breeder's permission?
> I would think that if the breeder is reasonable, that clause would ONLY be used in extremely rare cases when one of her dogs is actually being abused/mistreated/neglected, etc... and if the owner is responsible they shouldn't fear signing it because they know that would never happen anyway...
> 
> Good luck!!
> ...


The clause mentions that puppies may only be returned to the breeder and the breeder will rehome the puppy. 
I get where you are coming from, but what guarantee do you have that the breeder will only use this in rare cases? I've met some really weird and crazy people in my search for the right breeder. (not to say this breeder is) 
I just thought it was really odd that you pay for your pup and then again if she feels it doesn't get the right treatment....working as a animal activist I know people's views of what is cruel and what is not can vary extensively.


----------



## PonkiPoodles (Feb 25, 2009)

Harley_chik said:


> I think breeder's absolutely should include a clause like that if the puppy is on a spay/neuter contract and the puppy buyer doesn't comply. The other (bogus) registries make it too easy for some one to breed an AKC puppy that's sold on limited registration or is co-owned, etc. I don't think it's a bad idea to include something like that, in case they can no longer care for the dog it has to come back to you or go to someone you approve of. There are over zealous animal rights activist will do their best to ruin a breeder if one of their dogs is dumped in rescue, w/o even giving the breeder a chance to do the right thing and come pick up the dog. People don't even honor their written word anymore, so I see nothing wrong w/ a breeder trying to protect the idividual dog and their reputation. However, if they are going to fine you for any little thing like not using the right brand of vaccines or flea repellent, that's is crazy.


Well, IMO charging people money cause they don't fix their dog would more than likely not encourage them to fix it. A spay or neuter doesn't cost $1500. If you as a breeder are that concerned about a puppy being bred then I would think it best to have them fixed before they go into their forever homes.


----------



## wishpoo (Sep 12, 2009)

Ponki - do not get upset about it ! If you do not like the contract - you can ask for addendum or for her to rephrase it to be more specific. Yes, some breeders like to put spay/n. clausal to make sure pup is fixed. I, personally , like more when breeder does rigorous pre-screening and than does not have to worry about it ! OR, when breeder takes "off" that requirement after buyer sends back vet's proof of a procedure done. 

All in all, it is not odd to see that for spay/n. part, BUT for anything else it is just CRAZY ! If she is not trusting her buyer is caring person - than she should NOT sell the puppy for ANY price or with ANY contract.


----------



## plumcrazy (Sep 11, 2009)

PonkiPoodles said:


> The clause mentions that puppies may only be returned to the breeder and the breeder will rehome the puppy.
> I get where you are coming from, but what guarantee do you have that the breeder will only use this in rare cases? I've met some really weird and crazy people in my search for the right breeder. (not to say this breeder is)
> I just thought it was really odd that you pay for your pup and then again if she feels it doesn't get the right treatment....working as a animal activist I know people's views of what is cruel and what is not can vary extensively.


You're right... there is no guarantee, but my original post said IF the breeder is a reasonable person (and as you say there are some really weird and crazy people - and, sad to say, ESPECIALLY in the animal world!) You see - I consider myself a "reasonable" person and the humane society I managed had a similar clause (not $1500, more like $500 I think) and I remember only "threatening" to take legal action a couple of times, and each time it was the spay/neuter issue - it wasn't something that happened frequently... I guess that's where I get the "rare cases" inference.

You need to go with your "gut", and don't do anything that doesn't feel right!

Barb


----------



## Harley_chik (Nov 7, 2008)

wishpoo said:


> Ponki - do not get upset about it ! If you do not like the contract - you can ask for addendum or for her to rephrase it to be more specific. Yes, some breeders like to put spay/n. clausal to make sure pup is fixed. I, personally , like more when breeder does rigorous pre-screening and than does not have to worry about it ! OR, when breeder takes "off" that requirement after buyer sends back vet's proof of a procedure done.
> 
> All in all, it is not odd to see that for spay/n. part, BUT for anything else it is just CRAZY ! If she is not trusting her buyer is caring person - than she should NOT sell the puppy for ANY price or with ANY contract.


I agree with a lot of that. Don't ever sign any contract you aren't 100% comfortable with. It's okay to negotiate and even walk away.


----------



## PonkiPoodles (Feb 25, 2009)

wishpoo said:


> If she is not trusting her buyer is caring person - than she should NOT sell the puppy for ANY price or with ANY contract.


I'm not upset at all wishpoo... I was just asking for opinions and stating my own. (I very rarely get upset... it's just not worth it - especially not because you disagree with someone's opinion on a forum  LOL) And I know it's hard to tell from posts what exactly the person feels.

I do appreciate everyone's input. It always helps to get some other views on a subject  
Thanks for the input plumcrazy... I didn't even know they had these clauses in shelters.... guess you learn something new everyday.


----------



## cuddleparty (Apr 27, 2009)

PonkiPoodles said:


> I'm not upset at all wishpoo... I was just asking for opinions and stating my own. (I very rarely get upset... not worth it - especially not because of someone's opinion on a forum  LOL)


haha Ponki... unfortunately tempers can sometimes flare on forums, as some of us have come to discover. many members these days censor themselves or are worried about what they are saying for fear of being crucified! so I value your comments about that here 

y'know, in today's lawsuit/sue-happy society, contracts have alot of mumbo-jumbo that is just meant to safeguard each party... *just in case*. 

while the breeder may decide the consumer is responsible/caring and the consumer may decide the same of the breeder... you never can be 100% sure of people these days. sad, but true...


----------



## PonkiPoodles (Feb 25, 2009)

cuddleparty said:


> haha Ponki... unfortunately tempers can sometimes flare on forums, as some of us have come to discover. so I value your comments about that here


Thanks cuddleparty...
Ditto... I've seen tempers flare on here! It's fun to watch!


----------



## wishpoo (Sep 12, 2009)

I do not like temper flaring LOL - than we are not a "good representative of OUR breed" LMAO 

I wish we all could be a "middle road" dogs here and get along just fine without "bitching" he he , unless we encounter real problem - like irresponsible breeding practices.

eace:

PS: Ponki, I am glad you are cool about it all  and wish you best of luck in finding that perfect pup : )))


----------



## cuddleparty (Apr 27, 2009)

groooaaannnnnn
:lol:


----------

