Could A Breeder Successfully Sue For This ?

[Christina]

Just curious as to whether this could be successful ?

There was an ad on the net for a pair of breeding dogs. The ad stated breeding pair, limited pedigree.

If the advertiser was not the breeder could the breeder sue if they became aware that the pair of dogs they had sold on limited registration were being used this way or does the limited pedigree, non breeding, restrictions only have any validity with registering bodies ?

I do realise that many pedigree dog on limited are bred from but has anyone actually tried to do anything about this through a court. Would they have a valid case if they did ?

[mixeduppup]

I believe that once the dogs are sold the owner can do what they like with them unless they're also sold on a desexing contract, but sometimes even those won't hold up in court.

[fuzzy82]

Desexing contracts don't hold up, because no one can dictate what you can and cannot do with your own property (as long as it's not illegal of course, and breeding dogs isn't).

[Dogsfevr]

Desexing contracts don't hold up, because no one can dictate what you can and cannot do with your own property (as long as it's not illegal of course, and breeding dogs isn't).

Desexing contracts do hold up & people need to get this .

It may cost money to pursue but it is a contract & done correctly it will stand up in court .

All ours are desexed & any not done by the contract age is pursued & will have action taken unless there is a good reason to hold off .

We have yet to not have any pups done by said age .

Our contract was done by one of the top lawyers in contract area who also has one of our pups

[Starkehre]

I know of contracts that have held up. Been fought and won.

Limited Registery does not indicate that the dog cannot be bred with according to the law or physical possibility. It simply means the dog cannot be bred with in accordance with the state CC COE, nor can the puppies be registered with the state CC.

So, puppy buyers are not breaking the law, nor are they breeching any COE if they are not state CC members. It would be a civil case between the original breeder and the new breeder and depending the original breeder's own contract, it may be won.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

It would be fraud if the sellers represented the dogs and (potential) puppies as able to be registered with ANKC.

So I think if you got an email stating you could register the puppies with ANKC - that would be fraud and you could sue for the refund of the purchase price. Not sure what else though - fraudsters often go to jail for misrepresenting their product or effectively stealing from their customers. Not sure if a couple of dogs would be enough - you'd have to discuss with RSPCA or a police fraud squad. I think the police might be more interested in large scale fraud. But RSPCA might be more interested since it involves animals.

[tdierikx]

Anyone can breed any intact dog under the current legislation. Limited Registered dogs' offspring can't be registered with the state canine body... that's all. The pups can be considered as purebred (if both Limit Registered parents are of the same breed), but not considered pedigreed (due to not being able to get papers).

T.

[Christina]

My question isn't to do with desexing contracts. I also know that the dogs pups can't be advertised as with registered papers.

It the intent I am wondering if a civil case could be made from ?

So I guess this would come from how much is a dog considered property only.

Example.

Suppose a person was suing a vet because they desexed their prize winning stud due to a mix up at the clinic.

I assume they could sue for potential of lost litters, especially if the dog was a proven stud dog ?

So if the intent was clearly that the breeder sold the dogs as a limited pedigree non breeding pet pair & then they were sold on as a breeding pair could a case be made regarding breaking the Intent part as the interpretation is that this is the part that was misrepresentated. Not the legality of breeding a dog.

[oakway]

My question isn't to do with desexing contracts. I also know that the dogs pups can't be advertised as with registered papers.

It the intent I am wondering if a civil case could be made from ?

So I guess this would come from how much is a dog considered property only.

Example.

Suppose a person was suing a vet because they desexed their prize winning stud due to a mix up at the clinic.

I assume they could sue for potential of lost litters, especially if the dog was a proven stud dog ?

So if the intent was clearly that the breeder sold the dogs as a limited pedigree non breeding pet pair & then they were sold on as a breeding pair could a case be made regarding breaking the Intent part as the interpretation is that this is the part that was misrepresentated. Not the legality of breeding a dog.

The breeder doesn't have a leg to stand on in my opinion.

It all comes down to the Limited Register. The Limited Register does not stop the breeding of the dogs it only stops any off- spring from them being registered. If you don't want your dogs to bred with then de sex them. It is the same when we mark in some states registration papers not for Export. This does not stop the dogs being exported it just guarantees that an Official Export Pedigree Certificate will not be issued.

Edited April 21, 2013 by oakway

[mixeduppup]

Suing a vet isn't the same as suing someone you sold a puppy to. Once the puppy is theirs it's theirs, the dog would still be yours if a vet castrated it.

Edited April 21, 2013 by mixeduppup

[~Anne~]

Desexing contracts don't hold up, because no one can dictate what you can and cannot do with your own property (as long as it's not illegal of course, and breeding dogs isn't).

To my knowledge, this is correct.

I'd like to hear what the case names were for any that have been successfully taken to court for breach of contract. That would be like selling a car and telling the new owners they are never to change the colour of the car wouldn't it?

[koalathebear]

Once ownership/risk/title passes to the new owner, there's really nothing that the breeder as the previous owner can do about it - the dog belongs to someone else.

Desexing contracts etc can't be enforced unless you have a retention of title clause/retain part ownership. If you want to have joint ownership/have a retention of title clause though, if you want it to be enforceable, you'll also have to register it as a security interest under the PPS Act otherwise it's meaningless.

Even then, you'll need at least a couple of thousand dollars to pay the court fees needed for a specific performance action in the Supreme Court - that's even if you have a lawyer willing to donate free legal time to help with documents etc. It's do-able but I don't know many people who have the time and funds to pursue such an action.

You can certainly draft a breeders contract to increase the likelihood of its enforceability e.g in order to 'repossess' the dog in certain circumstances, I've tweaked with wording in the past to include concepts of reliance and also included what is in effect a call option (which is enforceable) but there's still the time and money needed to enforce such documents. You can also bolster your case by having transfer forms signed at time of contract to be held in escrow in case the breeder ever wishes to exercise the call option.

In my view, the simpler the better - I've seen some pretty wordy, verbose breeder contracts that throw in a lot of fancy legal-sounding words that actually have zero legal effect and actually just cloud the purpose of the document and undermine the enforceability. Clearly drafted, persuasive breeder contracts can make buyers believe that they're at least bound morally even if there's no legal clout behind it because of the pain involved with enforcement.

Edited April 21, 2013 by koalathebear

[Christina]

Suing a vet isn't the same as suing someone you sold a puppy to. Once the puppy is theirs it's theirs, the dog would still be yours if a vet castrated it.

Of course, bad example there.

I know limited registration papers does not stop the breeding of dogs & only desexing physically can, it is the intent I am querying.

Limited registration papers clearly mean not for breeding or showing. The Intent & meaning of the limited registration pedigree is quite clear.

I wonder if a good lawyer could win a case in civil court based on the intent & purpose of the dogs as they were sold. Guess its never been done.

[Steve]

Short answer is No. Limited register papers simply means that you dont want them to breed with it and register their puppies with the ANKC and so you have limited their ability to do so and the ANKC have agreed to ensure your wishes are upheld but that doesnt stop them from breeding them and not registering the puppies with the ANKC or breeding them and registering the puppies with another registry which accepts limited ANKC papers as suitable for breeding to register the puppies with their registry.

[Danois]

It would be fraud if the sellers represented the dogs and (potential) puppies as able to be registered with ANKC.

So I think if you got an email stating you could register the puppies with ANKC - that would be fraud and you could sue for the refund of the purchase price. Not sure what else though - fraudsters often go to jail for misrepresenting their product or effectively stealing from their customers. Not sure if a couple of dogs would be enough - you'd have to discuss with RSPCA or a police fraud squad. I think the police might be more interested in large scale fraud. But RSPCA might be more interested since it involves animals.

Fraud = criminal. Requires an intention to deprive.

Misrepresentation = civil. Simply requires someone to be mislead or deceived or likely to be. Intention of person is irrelevant.

Police would not be interested in the ad. They would tell you to go take civil action under the Competition and Consumer Law.

Fraudsters don't go to jail for misrepresenting things - they go for defrauding someone.

[oakway]

Suing a vet isn't the same as suing someone you sold a puppy to. Once the puppy is theirs it's theirs, the dog would still be yours if a vet castrated it.

Of course, bad example there.

I know limited registration papers does not stop the breeding of dogs & only desexing physically can, it is the intent I am querying.

Limited registration papers clearly mean not for breeding or showing. The Intent & meaning of the limited registration pedigree is quite clear.

I wonder if a good lawyer could win a case in civil court based on the intent & purpose of the dogs as they were sold. Guess its never been done.

Christina it only means not for breeding and showing within that registry.

[Flyntahn]

Interesting though that it says on the back of the limited registration that you cannot breed with the dog. So if the new owner changes it into their name with say Dogs Victoria and then breeds with it they are breaking the law. Then again if they dont change the dog into their name does it technically still belong to the breeder.

[Christina]

Interesting though that it says on the back of the limited registration that you cannot breed with the dog. So if the new owner changes it into their name with say Dogs Victoria and then breeds with it they are breaking the law. Then again if they dont change the dog into their name does it technically still belong to the breeder.

Its not breaking the law of the land its breaking Dogs Victoria rules.

My question relates to whether the intent of breeding from a dog sold with clear indication of not for breeding could actually be challenged in a court if the breeder should choose to try & do so. In theory.

This is the part that seems to be confusing everyone.

[minimax]

Interesting though that it says on the back of the limited registration that you cannot breed with the dog. So if the new owner changes it into their name with say Dogs Victoria and then breeds with it they are breaking the law. Then again if they dont change the dog into their name does it technically still belong to the breeder.

Its not breaking the law of the land its breaking Dogs Victoria rules.

My question relates to whether the intent of breeding from a dog sold with clear indication of not for breeding could actually be challenged in a court if the breeder should choose to try & do so. In theory.

This is the part that seems to be confusing everyone.

The breeder doesn't own the dog anymore, it has no say in what happens to it.

[mixeduppup]

the breeder has no right to the dog once it's bought by someone else. The CC could take the breeding of a limited reg dog to court since the paperwork says no breeding but they would have to have rock hard evidence to prove that the dog was going to be bred and/or the puppies that are on the ground were not an accident. Good luck with that. It's a hard one.

Edited April 21, 2013 by mixeduppup