~Anne~

Thanks Amanda. Still, all in all, who has the money to battle people in court over the re-homing of a dog you have sold them. Even *if* we were to determine that a contract was legally enforceable, the strength of the enforcement depends on how much money and time you have to take the preson to court.

Is it a 'rescue'in the terms we would normally use in rescue, or a welfare org/shelter such as the AWL or RSPCA?

That is all interesting, but why then have several people been told by legal representatives that a contract on the sale of a dog, promising the return of the dog if it ever needs re-homing, is not enforceable? Can I ask, are you studying law or practising it? If you are practising, would you be prepared to write a legally enforceable contract for people and defend that contract if is challenged?

The contract has a condition of sale which is legally binding how ever the dog is considered "goods" so you can affix a monetary value only. But the condition of sale isnt legal. It takes away the right of the owner to have free enjoyment of and make decisions about their own property. If I didnt want to give the breeder back my dog no amount of contract I may have signed years ago would make me do it. Thank God. I think that is what they said - the dog is considered 'goods' and therefore a condition can not be affixed to it as an item of sale (ie goods)

You can't put a contract on a dog once it is sold. It doesn't matter what law you argue it under and I am not able to name the specific laws and rights that it comes under but it is very similar, for example, to buying a lounge. The person who sells you the lounge can not write a contract that forces you to do anything with it. Once it is sold it is yours lock stock and barrel. Dogs come under a consumer law which is why you can not stop a pet shop from selling a dog.

Is that 12 from one person though? Otherwise, it is a tad strange that 12 of the exact same cross breed have been handed in.... I'd say either the media or the Council are incorrectly reporting either intentionally or unintentionally.

This.. I feel the same way. Don't cry poor and whinge for help, when you don't /won't give/sell dogs back to the breeders who would take them. I feel very strongly about this topic too and was horrified when I found out how many registered breeders didn't care when their dog was surrendered to the group or was at risk of it being surrendered - I was also saddened by how many were happy for the rescue group to rehome the dog without offering assistance. Its fair enough that not every breeder of every breed can just take an unknown adult dog into their pack but those breeders were the ones who offered help in referring homes or a donation for the dog in question. Don't get me wrong - I've come across some great breeders but the greater majority of registered breeders contacted didn't want to know or help. It was so rare to see one who DID care that I actually nominated them for an MDBA award because of the effort that they went to to get the dog of their breeding back, safe, with them. I'm personally aware of THREE local registered breeders who were contacted by Albury Pound about dogs of their breeding that had been impounded. One didn't return two phone calls about an entire dog surrendered with main register papers (but then accused the pound of doing the wrong thing when the dog was rehomed with those papers) and the other two said that they wouldn't be coming to get their dogs. All three show their dogs. I must say that I found the opposite with Pug breeders. Many wanted to assist in some way, although some didn't and some appeared to react as though the idea of assisting a dog in need that they had bred as being a very foreign concept. Running a breed specific rescue, I spoke to a lot of breeders whose dogs had eneded up in my care for one reason or another, so I feel I got a reasonable idea od how Pug breeders felt and or reacted to their dogs ending up in rescue.

Precedent set as you said. I would very firmly explain that you no longer will do dogs on demand and that he must ring and make an appointment in future.

The breeder should have the first right to rehome the dog. It's not ethical to try to make more money on a purebred dog. Not in my books. The breeder should be considered as part of assessing the best outcome for the dog and they should be considered first, but certainly not the first 'right' to re-home a dog.

Its been tested several times and contract law says you cant make someone promise something into the future once its their own property and you cannot put punishments on if they breach into the future because its no longer your property - basic contract law. Your knowledge of contract law is flawed. To my knowledge a dog is sold. I think that is the crux of the inability to place a contract on the sale of a dog. Just like any other consumer product that you purchase, once paid for in full it is yours to do as you choose. Happy for someone to clarify though as I am not experienced in legal matters although I did have a legal officer check over the contract I had my adopters sign and he gave me the impression that it wouldn't hold water if push came to shove.

I only ever contacted as a courtesy to let the breeder know where their dog had ended up. I did not contact them to ask to take the dog back on most occassions, althought I have arranged this on many occassions. Whilst some breeders might be the kind I would have confidence in re-homing the dog, many are not. Many took my call and were surprised that people thought they should take the dog back, although this has certainly changed over the years with more and more deciding that they should. It would be different though I would think if I was overloaded when rescuing, but I wasn't and I was more than able to deal with the Pugs that came through and was easily able to re-home them appropriately. One that I re-homed ended up elsewhere but there wasn't much I could do about it. The person I re-homed him to then re-homed him again less than 12 months later. Just as it is wrong to lump breeders all in the same basket, it is just as wrong to lump rescuers in one and I feel there is a big differecne between the RSCPA or AWL and a rescue run privately in many respects as well. Rescues, unless they take surrenders, don't generally take in dogs that are not already scanned and checked as most rescues, rescue from pounds where this is done first. Microchips do not prove ownership, so having your name second on the details won't mean much. I always added my details as awell, but it would be interesting to see just how many data entries made on the dogs I re-homed included my details as the secondary contact on the database. I didn't do it to prove ownership but to hopefully ensure the dog was never at risk sitting in a pound.... although Pugs are usually snapped up pretty quickly anyway.

I agree with Mags. The lack of checks on true ownership is pretty bad.

Although I can understand being upset, if the dog is going to an appropriate home I can't any issue. Isn't that why the concept of 'taking back the dogs you have bred' was introduced? Wasn't it to ensure the dog wasn't euth'd or abandoned or open to abuse?

Thank you. I think of her a million times a day. I miss her dreadfully.

Several things come to mind when I read your post (and I am sure others are probably thinking along similar lines). How do you know the rescue will re-home them entire? How do you know the rescue is not a 'good' rescue? There is no law stating a dog has to be desexed before being re-homed. Is the owner concerned? WHat business is it of others who she gave her dogs to? You state it was someone in the US who emailed you. Are the dogs in the US or in Australia? Perhaps if you provide more information about your concerns people will respond differently.

I know a Doug the Pug and a Daniel the Cavalier Spaniel I also know a Doug the Pug who lives with Dave the staffy.

November 1996 - 15 August 2011. Molly. My Molly. Cuddly, cute and obsessed with food. Laid back and spirited all at the same time. My mother's cat before she became mine. I can't write paragaraph upon paragraph of beautiful words because they can't do her justice, or what she meant to me. I will forever hold onto the memories of which there are many but moreso of her last few days, when I nuzzled her with my face and she purrred and made little mew sounds. I loved that she knew I loved her. I loved that I made her feel so comforted, that even as sick as she was, she nuzzled back and purred at me and made her little sounds.

Pugs are also terrible at reading body language, including warning signals, of other dogs. This puts them at greater risk. I have no idea what happened here but knowing the pug as I do I only feel sick to the pit of my stomach when I think of what occurred. I think people need to acknowledge that dogs are animals. They live with instinct directing them even though domestication has lessened this to some degree and breeding has altered this natural part of a canine further. They're not stuffed toys.

I hope it wasn't any Pugs and Pug owners that I know in that area.

It is linked in the news forum already.

I am sorry but that is seriously naive. Especially with Child Protection. If you truly think that if you have done nothing wrong, that they will never come up with false allegations / concerns etc, you are wrong. Child Protection are dangerous. They don't need hard evidence to take your children, just if on the "balance of probabilities" they feel their suspicions are justified, whether they are real or not, especially when it comes to "sexual abuse". But this is probably starting to go off topic from a dog forum. However I would also be concerned if the RSPCA turned up at my house based on false allegations. I wouldn't let them inside my home, no matter what. Naive? No, not naive at all. The greater majority of parents and dog owners never have issues with DOCS or the RSPCA and if a complaint was lodged falsely, then they would be cleared as the OP has been, without a problem. Very few people in all reality have their children taken from them unneccessarily and very few people in all reality have their dogs seized for no reason.

The document is so stupid it is scary. Who was the idiots behind writing it? I am not sure if I should laugh, cry or go make another coffee. It is all too resoundingly dumbass for my brain to accept. Is Adolf behind this document? If your dog is blue eyed and white haired, it is not considered to be a Pb.

It is written just like a standard, not a guide to detemrine a Pb? It is bizarre. Judging by the document, blue eyed dogs, white dogs and merles are safe.

The Daily Hansard, the Hon. P. R. HALL (Minister for Higher Education and Skills) tabled the following: After this date [30 Sept 2011] any owner of an unregistered restricted breed dog will be liable for the offence of keeping a restricted breed dog, for which 10 penalty units apply. Furthermore, the restricted breed dog will also be able to be seized under section 79 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 and ultimately destroyed. This seems to mean, for example, that if you have a SBT or x-breed and don't feel a need to register as a restricted breed dog because you know it is not an APBT, but some official decides your dog is an APBT after reading the standard they are publishing, your dog is likely to be destroyed. I don't think that means totally unregistered . . . and I don't think prior registration, eg, as a SBT, helps. The justification for the law given in the Daily Hansard makes it clear that they are trying to crack down on people who pass off restricted breed dogs as non-restricted breeds. But it does say 'unregistered' so why do you think it doesn't mean registered with Council? Is there a definition in the Act for the word 'regsitered'?

Barry's name when he first came in as a rescue was Sebastian. His new owners re-named him Barry.