as long as you manage to get the kc paper work for the pups noone can be stoped from showing ,the only thing she could make you do is stop them from leaving the uk to show!.

the green form (purple for ABS members) is the registration application form which both the breeder and stud dog owner must sign. 

Sounds like Op has filled it out and sent it to the bitches breeder, who I assume has the stud, as why else would she send the application to her.

Unless of course she demanded to have it sent to her first to check the endorsement boxes were ticked, and was then going to send it in at the same as the endorsement lifting letter.

,the only thing she could make you do is stop them from leaving the uk to show!.

Not even that as long as they still LIVED in the UK.

o yes sorry i dont even know why i put that "very tired" the dog cant go to anougher country and be reg there??? is that why??i just cant think stright :(x

>She wants me to sign a contract

I don't see the point.  The dog belongs to you.  And she should have had your signature when you bought the dog. 

She is trying to close the stable door after the horse has gone isn't she?  Or am I missing something here?

> I don't see the point.  The dog belongs to you.  And she should have had your signature when you bought the dog.  
> She is trying to close the stable door after the horse has gone isn't she?  Or am I missing something here?

She won't lift the endorsements of the dam unless the OP signs this contract. As the contract seems to be unfair and may well not stand up in court, I'd suggest the OP signs everything in order to get the endorsement lifted and the puppies registered, then deal with the unfair conditions side of it later on as and when they arise.

>She won't lift the endorsements of the dam unless the OP signs this contract.

But I thought this should have been done when the pup was purchased.  Before the OP became the owner.

This is a new contract with more rules before endorsements will be lifted,this breeder has moved the goalposts so many time and the bitch owner has complied but now things have gone beyond a joke.

Or call her bluff and see what she does and the stud dog owner.. I can't imagine fr one moment the breeder or the stud dog owner will allow a whole litter to remain unregistered.
However I believe easier to sign and get them registered into your name of your affix!! Make sure that they are in your name only and not the breeders of this bitch!

> Or call her bluff and see what she does and the stud dog owner.. I can't imagine fr one moment the breeder or the stud dog owner will allow a whole litter to remain unregistered.

Is it worth the risk? It might severely compromise any homes lines up for these pups. You only have to look in the Free Ads to see how many unregistered dogs there are for sale these days.

Thsi whole thread makes me cross, as responsible breeders put endorsements on in good faith, to protect theri breed, and this kind of behaviour brings the whole process into question.

Word to the wise never ever mate a bitch until the endorsement is lifted.

Hopefully the OP gets back to us today with news after talking to the KC.

I don't know if this is a difficult breed to find homes for but I'd be not actually now I think about it wanting to delay this process anymore, I'd want to be able to register and advertise these pups sooner rather than later!!

She says she has homes for all but 2[10 pups if I remember from original thread] but these may be dependant on KC registration.

Bad news.

The Kennel Club won't lift the endorsement.

This is all so unfair.

>BUT she is also now insisting that I NEVER let my puppies bred or be shown.

There is no endorsement preventing showing; there used to be, many years ago, but that was dropped at least 20 years ago. The only endorsements possible are registration of progeny and export pedigree.

I agree with Ms Temeraire's comment "As the contract seems to be unfair and may well not stand up in court, I'd suggest the OP signs everything in order to get the endorsement lifted and the puppies registered, then deal with the unfair conditions side of it later on as and when they arise." You need her to lift the endorsement on your bitch so that you can register the ltter. After that there's nothing she can do.

> The Kennel Club won't lift the endorsement

Then all you can do is smile sweetly at your breeder, sign the contract get the endorsement lifted and your puppies registered then tell her to go forth and multiply!! There is not a damn thing she can do then.

I totally agree, sign the contract then reg your pups, with endorsements and let her whistle ! Once the pups are reg nothing in the world can stop owners showing them and the lifting of the endorsements will be up to you not her !
Aileen

> The Kennel Club won't lift the endorsement.
>
> This is all so unfair.

If endorsements are properly applied (your had it in writing and  signed that you knew about them) then the kennel club will not lift them.  Equally they will not get involved with the bitches breeders restrictive contract.

The puppies you breed are yours and the bitch is your property.

The only person who can put on or lift endorsements from the pups is yourself.

If the bitches breeder doesn't want any of the pups shown or bred on from, what the hell was the purpose of allowing the litter to be bred? I'd certainly not want any of mine bred from (which is always a risk) unless the purpose was to start/continue a line for the good of the breeds gene pool.

The only way I would agree with what the bitches breeder is now saying is if since the mating it has come to light that the litter are likely to be affected by some serious health defect, and then their registration would be the least of my worries, and she ought to trust you to keep the endorsements in place if this is the case..

Can you explain what the KC actually said?

You complied with the original contract, your bitch had a litter with the assistance of her breeder and now she has added another contract, I can't see how they can support this or am I missing something here, I would be asking to speak to someone higher up at the KC or contacting the "dog papers", what is to stop other breeders of bitches doing the same to folk they are mentoring.

What about contacting the "dog law" solicitor, his name escapes me, for some advice?

I feel that signing the contract would be just as underhand if you don't intend to comply and no guarantee that would be the end of the matter.

Sadly the KC show no interest at all in such matters!

I would sign her contract, get the bitches endorsements lifted and then as your puppy owners contact you if they want to breed and have met your criteria lift as you see fit.

Her contract won't be worth anything in the long term as you will have your own contract between you and the puppy owners.

Also there is nothing her, or you for that matter can do if any of the puppy owners decide to show as it's not controlled by the KC papers.  ;) She can't hold you to any of it really.

If the bitches breeder doesn't want any of the pups shown or bred on from, what the hell was the purpose of allowing the litter to be bred?

This is what I was trying to understand Brainless, in an earlier post but it was not answered, this possessive breeder even helped with the stud dog arrangements, why? The OP is keeping a dog for herself (at least that has now been answered I get the point of the litter now from the OP's point of view) but why would any foundation breeder support a litter coming into this world for just the owner to have a pet only dog?

The truth is in hindsight the OP would have been better off just buying in another dog to show and possibly add to her own breeding programme.

I don't understand it! I don't understand why the Foundation breeder agreed to the mating and was so helpful? Because she thought the litter would not be of show quality? But, she helped find a good stud?

I also do not understand the KC, I'd ring back and try someone else!!! Sorry but I'd badger them to death!! Sometimes you have to keep fighting, I'd be back on the phone again and again. I had a look at their website re: endorsements and they even say that they would prefer parties to sort it out between themselves but they do intervene, and in this case they rightly should!.

I know that the contract is not worth the paper it is written on, but our OP knows full well there is going to be trouble, there will be threats if she shows her pup let alone if any of the litters owners do, who wants a lifetime of threats and worry and bad mouthing, not good if the person is well known in the breed, the KC need to back our OP, I'd be on the phone again, until someone I spoke to lifted without all this hassle.

I've never heard anything like this.

This is the part that refers: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/365

"In attempt to lessen the Kennel Club's involvement in what is essentially a private dispute, the Kennel Club will apply the following criterion when assessing whether or not an endorsement should be lifted, as per Kennel Club regulation B12. Written confirmation must be obtained from the new owner at the time of sale to state that they have been made aware of any proposed endorsements, even if the endorsed registration certificate is given at the time of sale. In the event of a dispute where such evidence exists, the Kennel Club would normally decide in favour of the vendor's endorsements being retained. Conversely, in the absence of such written evidence, the Kennel Club would normally decide in favour of the purchaser and lift the endorsement. However, this would only apply in cases where a dog is transferred from the person who placed the endorsement to a new ownership."

they have nothing to do with conditions of removal, only if the endorsements have been properly placed.  They cannot make the breeder lift  the endorsement if it was properly placed.  This would now be a civil matter, re loss of value of the litter.

The OP's mistake was being too trusting and allowing a litter to be born before endorsements were lifted.

In the OP's position I would contact the breed club that I assume they are both members of, and seek their advice.  Chances are they won't be able to do anything, unless they feel this kind of behaviour is disreputable enough for them to censure/expel.  The breeder is likely to want to protect their reputation within breed circles.  Also have you been in touch with the stud dog owner, after all their and their dogs reputation is at stake too.  In a lot of breed circles it is very much frowned on if a dog sires unregistered stock.

I would sell the puppies without KC reg, and accept a lesson hard learnt.  I would then approach and befriend another breeder whose dogs you admire, in the future for a potential foundation bitch, and ensure that you both are happy for the bitch to be bred from if shown and has good health results etc, but make sure the endorsements are lifted, explain to them what has happened and why you would be particularly wary.

Trouble is this litter no doubt has been offered with KC papers, it's turning our OP into the kind of breeder that we all say are scammers offering KC pups at KC prices and then them turning out to have no papers, if I were one of these puppy buyers I'd really think she was a con artist no-one will believe this preposterous story, it's so off the wall. It's a complete disaster for our OP.

If the KC truly will not help, (wish I could remember the case on here previous where the OP won an overturn) alas, there is no time for solicitor involvement (as she does have a case to answer here) as it won't be sorted before the pups are homed, I'd rather sign this mad contract rather than have an unregistered litter for me that would feel worse and I would be letting down the pups new owners who might turn on their heels anyway.

Backed into a box, I'd have to sign, the pups are here almost ready for their new homes, it can't be dragged out much longer, the KC was the only real hope here.

I'd still try them again, nothing to lose.

It's just you know there is going to be a lot of crap thrown at the OP once she does not adhere to the silly contract, not nice for anyone to deal with.

Karrie,

In that case as other people have said sign that contract, get them registered and then go from there :-)

Well I suppose OP could just do as the bitches breeder has asked, sell all the pups to Pet only homes with endorsements that stay in place, including the pup she was going to keep.

Then in 18 months or two years time, OP can breed a litter for herself with no-one to tell her what to do as the endorsements would be lifted, and she could then keep a pup, breed on from the line etc as she wishes.

Simplest, but most galling situation.

Like that idea Brainless, sounds like the best plan of action. :-)

I just can't help but feel so saddened for Kerrie though imagine if the pup she keeps could be a real show stopper and go all the way, it would break my heart. :-(

We all take pride in our lines, but gosh, never heard of anything like this.

Karrie

In that case as other people have said sign that contract, get them registered and then go from there

Agree that this is the best course of action

I would be tempted to tell the OP's breeder that I intended to sue her under the Sale of Goods Act which states that an item must be fit for the purpose for which it is bought. She bought this bitch intending to breed from her (subject to the breeder's endorsement being met and therefore lifted). As she was advertised as being KC registered and was mated to a KC stud of the original breeder's choosing, it follows that her own litter(s) would also be KC registered and entitled to be shown/bred from themselves (subject to OP's lifting any endorsements she saw fit to place). If the bitch had originally been advertised as carrying all the conditions all of which, apart one, were introduced some time SUBSEQUENT to her purchase, she would never have bought her in the first place.

So she could potentially sue for the bitch's purchase price plus loss of current and future litter fees as non-KC pups will be worth less than KC ones. I would explain to the original breeder that this litter will be have to be non-KC registered as signing the original breeder's NEW contract would mean that she agreed with the new terms which she certainly does not. Hence this and future litters will cost the same to rear but will certainly be sold for less than if they had papers and I would expect a court to agree that the original breeder should meet the deficit as it caused solely by their actions.  

Sorry if this all sounds very mercenary but I would be playing hard ball with this breeder as she has been so difficult and unreasonable in her behaviour. You need to be equally tough in return, imo.

But there are 10 puppies to be homed, and if they are not KC registered it is quite possible that the OP's homes will be lost.

With a litter of this size I expect this is not a small breed, and it will make life very difficult for the OP as a Novice breeder, and harder to place the pups well.

So maybe swallowing all this (much as it goes against the grain) is the only real solution, and the next litter the OP will no longer haver her hands tied.

If she keeps in touch with the new owners then she can see how the pups develop, giving her an even better idea of where to go with the next litter to improve on the dam, and even what she produced.

Brainless wrote:

> ".....Written confirmation must be obtained from the new owner at the time of sale to state that they have been made aware of any proposed endorsements, even if the endorsed registration certificate is given at the time of sale....."  [ quote from KC]

Well that clearly has NOT happened, as the OP was made aware of the bitch's endorsement at the time of sale..... but not of the "new" endorsements the breeder is trying to place on them NOW...  Also surely the breeder has demostrated willingness to lift the original endorsement by her active participation in arranging a mating - unless she was deliberately breeding an unregisterable litter and both parties were aware of this at the time of mating (I don't think so)?

Ah but the conditions the bitches breeder decides to impose is not part of the decision.

If the endorsement was properly placed, it stays until the endorser lifts it, as the KC don't want to get involved with disagreements between parties..

There are plenty of cases where a litter is on the ground and the breeder then tries to get the endorsement lifted and could easily lie to the KC.

This happened to a friend.  Emotional blackmail was used.  the bitch was under age, no health testing of either parent.  She would have lifted the endorsement had the breeder done the testing (you do have 12 months in which to register a litter at the usual price).

The only thing is that by not stepping in the KC might be accused of colluding in the breeding and selling on of unregistered puppies. In effect by not involving themselves in this matter they appear to be stepping back and looking the other way. They always claim to have so little power in 'private matters' but they do control registrations and this particular case smacks of abuse of process.

As you, I and others have pointed out, what was the bitch breeder intending when she arranged and supported three matings, two with her own family's stud dog, knowing that she had insisted on a written endorsement? One can only conclude that she intended unregistered progeny- surely her breed club and the KC should be taking a close interest in such behaviour? And, again, what of the stud dog owner, they too have a responsibility for the litter and, as you say, their reputation is also at stake. The KC has to step in, these are exactly the sort of shenanigans that give breeders a bad name.

What a despicable breeder :-( No-ones blood lines are so sacrasanct (sp) that they should be kept within the breeders control. This sort if thing gives decent breeders a bad name. And now the KC will be accused of only wanting the money again, not interested in the dogs. Surprise surprise.

If it was my litter I would be shouting from the rooftops, going to the dog press, the breed clubs, other breeders. How dare she move the goal posts after the pups have been born. A talk with a good dog solicitor is definately in order here.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but is there anything in the contract you had when you bought your bitch that might help you.  For example, she will lift the endorsements if you get the health tests done.  Double check the wording, the earliest contract surely takes precedence and if you go the legal route may offer something in your favour .

Might be worth a call: Specialist Advice on Dog Law - Trevor Cooper

I think it's important to get the pups KC reg, whatever you need to sign now.  Deal with the outcome of that later. 

How is the original breeder going to know the endorsements have been lifted by Karrie?  If Karrie regs the pups and then decides in 6 months time to lift the endorsements on her pup and maybe others, the KC are not going to notify the original breeder of that - Karrie placed the endorsement, and Karrie is asking for it to be removed.  The original breeder would probably find out if she saw the pups at shows, and she could kick up a fuss then - but the endorsements would have been lifted by then, the KC can't put them back again...

This is, for me, part of the problem with endorsements - the POWER involved in them can go to some people's heads and they end up thinking they should have control over others forever more.

if it was me id just sign it has been said she cant stop you lifting any endorsements after...she is trying to frighten you!!!

What a despicable breeder :-(
We are only hearing one side of the story here!!!

I'm sorry WestCoast, but you do not help someone out with the stud dog, then pull out of the agreement, or change the goalposts. The BREEDER was more than happy with the original contract, agreed to everything the OP has done, and then at the time of registering the litter has added on new things that the OP must do before they will lift the endorsement. This should have all been agreed to prior to the mating. If she didn't want her 'line' bred on from then she shouldn't have helped find a stud dog in the first place. The OP should have been told at the beginning that she wouldn't be allowed to breed. No matter how good the results are.

IF the OP has got it wrong, and the breeder didn't do what is stated in previous posts then I will apologise for my wording, but until the breeder can give us her side then I will stand by my post. No breeder should lead a puppy owner up the garden path by changing what was agreed. It's not on.

im 100% with you on this Lindylou, NO good breeder would help then say do this and that now .....its not a good breeder imo.

We don't know what might have changed for the breeder in the meantime,  I've certainly discovered things along the road that I didn't like about people who I thought were on the same wavelength and I trusted.  Perhaps the breeder has found out more about what's behind the dog and bitch but doesn't want to mud sling - just doesn't want the pups to be bred from.  Maybe the breeder's attitude has changed, and maybe she has good reason - we don't know.  I don't have a crystal ball anymore than the rest of you.

Contrary against the current politically correct attitude, I'm all for making judgements - we all have to do it everyday to make the right decisions in life as well as to protect ourselves.  But I only make judgments once I know the fullest possible picture and that means both sides.  It's very foolish to do otherwise.  :)

i get what your saying westcoat but if thats what the breeder might be thinking then she should tell her owner her finding not put other things in her way ,she should be straght with her .....i couldnt do what this breeder is doing!! ive lifted when iv said after health tests and the dog being of good movement/comfamation exc...you cant just do what shes doing without her saying why :(

> you cant just do what shes doing without her saying why

Westcoast is correct we have absolutely no idea that this breeder is not saying why.  We have no information from the other side of this at all.  We simply do not know. 
It is reasonable to advise and give our opinion on what the OP might do in the circumstances that she describes but it is pointless getting excited about what this breeder may or may not have done in itself when we cannot really know the truth of it all and this is most likely why the Kennel Club take the attitude that they do.

Been reading this thread and feel so sorry for you, Karrie. Endorsements are applied to ensure that the foundations are laid for good breeding practice . They are placed at the time of registration of puppies and the breeder should explain what they are and how and when they will be lifted, at the time the puppy is sold to the new owner. It is standard practice for both parties to sign a paper confirming that the endorsement has been explained/agreed on and indeed a contract to that effect should be agreed /signed with both parties keeping a copy. The situation you are in gives endorsements a bad name.There should not be any retrospective or add on clauses . It would appear that you have done your best to adhere to the contract/ agreement but this breeder has moved the goal posts and broken whatever agreement /contract was made when you bought the puppy and mated the girl. It is a pity that the Kennel Club are not being more helpful. I had a situation whereby my boy was used at stud with the understanding that the puppies would have their registrations endorsed but the breeder refused to apply them. Very irresponsible as her girl is a CEA carrier. I posted this and was pleased that all members endorse puppies. Sadly ,your situation risks bringing the system into disrepute.

Of course,the bottom line here is that the Kennel club should not accept for registration, puppies from breeders who have not done the relevant health screening, including DNA tests where available. This would obviate the need for endorsements. Why can't we have a system whereby health screening is mandatory and indeed breeding dogs assessed for type and temperament before breeding? Registration dependent on acceptable health results and assessment ?...I can dream !

Karrie has not been back to answer my question of yesterday re what exactly did the KC say and their grounds for refusing to help.

Of course,the bottom line here is that the Kennel club should not accept for registration, puppies from breeders who have not done the relevant health screening, including DNA tests where available. This would obviate the need for endorsements. Why can't we have a system whereby health screening is mandatory and indeed breeding dogs assessed for type and temperament before breeding? Registration dependent on acceptable health results and assessment ?...I can dream !

Jan, often thought this too, in an ideal world it would work great, but then I check myself it is never good to give one authority power over all and a full monopoly on who breeds and who doesn't. I can't imagine for a minute that they would ever have the time to call on every single bitch or dog wishing to be put forward for breeding and having to pass by their standards of what makes good breeding stock.

I also thought well if not the KC, what about the breed clubs having the final say on endorsement lifts but again what if there are 'favourites' etc, some people really are winning mad and all sorts of double dealings could go on, if there are people as the OP seems to have having a final say, you'd have no chance would you? :-D

I think endorsements are better left to those of us who breed, we know what we want to produce, the aim of our breeding programmes and we are actually here in the flesh able to look at our lines and view our adult pups, we don't need to go through someone ruling over us all.

Although, it should be mandatory that all health checks are done, it really should be, I don't know why that hasn't become completely official now for all KC registrations.

I have been following this thread and agree with Westcoast and Rodach that we only have one side of the story. Questions about the original contract have been asked but remain unanswered. If we had the exact wording that was in the original contract, we may be able to get an idea what has gone wrong.

Has the OP carried out all required health test ? What were the results ?

Whilst on the face of it it looks as if the breeder is being awkward, we do not know the full story, I have known breeders refuse to lift endorsements as they were not happy with test results, but the owners have gone on and mated up a bitch anyway hoping to force their hand later.
I could be completely wrong, but I would like to see the original contract and copies of health test before I could make a judgement.

i agree but can only go by what op has said and on that alone iv said what ive said if she says all helth done we can only believe that because the breeder of her bitch surely wouldnt help and find a stud without knowing the results!?.