I gave a pup i had hand picked to use as a future stud to a close friend of one of my friends,stupidly didnt put it in writing but do have personel messages between us on record.She contacted me within a few weeks to say one of  his testicles hadnt dropped.I told her i would only use him as a stud if they both dropped but to give it time and not rush in to neutering him,i also said i wouldnt ask for money for him but that she had to keep in regular contact to let me know he was ok and to send pics.The last time i heard from her was early last summer so after no contact and ignored contact from me i asked her to at least let me know how he was doing and if he had his op.She finally replied saying yes he had been neutered( i was never contacted when this was done) she then asked if i wanted some money towards him and i said  yes i do because you havent contacted me at all  but i also wanted a vet report of his op as proof he did infact have an indescended testicle and again no reply.I have his papers and am still by paper his owner,i also have his dna eye test papers i paid for too so ive asked her to pay for him if she wants full rights because she certainly isnt going to keep in contact and im not giving someone a puppy fr free for no reason.I will never do this again unless its a very close friend or family member.Her friend who is also my friend assures me he has a loving him.Id fight to get him back but she has a disabled daughter who adores him and for that reason only i wouldnt.What rights do i have?I have my solicitor appointment at the end of this week x

Lesson learnt, once a pup is out of your hands whatever paperwork you have he is defacto owned by that person.

Always sell outright (with breeding endorsements of course) and if things work out pay a stud fee once the dog proves to be of good standard and health tested.

Breeding terms arrangements so often go wrong.

if she wants full rights

To be honest, I'm not sure what 'full rights' apply here.   You let him go with certain conditions in place (in writing?) and unfortunately as time has passed, the lines of communication haven't been quite as you'd hoped.   Yes she should have been back to you before he was castrated, but fact is possession is 9/10ths of the law, regardless really (unless this was all in writing, under contract?).   I agree this unfortunately is a lesson learnt situation.   And as always, for me the good home is always the most important thing - he's of no use to you now, as a castrated dog (and wasn't with just one down either!!).    Water under the bridge - as long as he's in a kind home this is really all that matters.

What would you do with him if you did get him back???

ps   I'm a bit confused about who actually bred this dog, handed it over etc.etc.?

In UK law technically you don't need anything in writing - if terms and discussed in advance in any way its still a binding contract - that said it only takes one person to deny conversations taking place and you have problems unless you have witnesses to every contact - hence needing to always put things in writing that way there can be no dispute.

If you were rich and wanted to take this further in a Court you could and might win... something. But what? Any money you'd win would be swallowed up with filing the claim with the Court and legal advice costs. You could end up with a situation of spending months of communications being fobbed off or ignored between yourself/your lawyer only to pay to have it taken to small claims Court and her turn up with proof of the neutering, proof that it was necessary, costs involved in it, a story of adoring the dog and her family loving it, the fact that she wrote offering you money etc.... Court would look quite favourably to all that ..... you could potentially end up winning the case but still walking away with nothing or legal bills.

You could contest the issue on the basis that you are the legal owner... again..likely result is that they make her pay you for the dog, minus the costs of the neutering possibly, and tell you to sign over the dog - or they could order that you be given the dog back but that you reimburse her for all food, vet bills, comforts, toys etc throughout the period the dog lived with her as she would be classed as an out of pocket carer/guardian if you contested ownership etc.  You ought to reconsider ownership really..... possibly... for example, you might well get in trouble if the dog hurts another person or injures itself or another dog and it turns out she hasn't got him insured and neither do you -  since as the legal owner you would be responsible for costs....

There are lots of things you could do in the legal system - but my advice would be to avoid that since its likely to cause you stress, no acceptable to resolution at the end, potential cost and even a strain on your relationship with your friend.

You could contest the issue on the basis that you are the legal owner..

The OP isn't the legal owner. The legal owner is the person who has the dog living with them, feeds it, takes it to the vet etc. The fact the KC registration etc is in a different name is of no importance at all.

OP is the legal owner if the sale has not been completed as shown by an offer of money but no money changing hands, an offer to keep in contact but not followed through, the dog being registered in OP's name and not transferred  = in law no transfer of ownership has occurred, no completed sale and no completed contract - OP is the owner and the other person is the registered keeper - like in a car sale - therefore ownership can be argued - and OP is likely to win on that point. That is NOT to say that in a Court she would necessarily get the dog back - but instead is likely to be pushed towards a compromise and instead awarded the monies the court feel should be paid - unless the other person didn't contest and then she just gets the dog back of course. So far as legal liability if any accident or injury was incurred at the hands of the dog and it was uninsured - first they go after the keeper of the animal - if recompense cannot be given satisfactorily to any injury or vet fee suit - they can and will go after any other person with a registered interest which with dogs will always be the person they are registered as being owned by with the Kennel Club if KC registered.

"The legal owner is the person who has the dog living with them, feeds it, takes it to the vet etc" - not exactly since that could mean someone steals your dog keeps it well for a year and is the legal owner - nope. Someone buys it in a pub off the thief not knowing its stolen - feeds and loves it etc - are they the legal owner? nope - same law applies to dogs as cars unfortunately.

"The legal owner is the person who has the dog living with them, feeds it, takes it to the vet etc" - not exactly since that could mean someone steals your dog keeps it well for a year and is the legal owner - nope. Someone buys it in a pub off the thief not knowing its stolen - feeds and loves it etc - are they the legal owner? nope - same law applies to dogs as cars unfortunately.

This has happened multiple times and the police refused to get involved as the dog was brought in good faith and the owner it was stolen from was told to go fight it out in court.
Kc reg as well as microchips are not proof of ownership.

"The legal owner is the person who has the dog living with them, feeds it, takes it to the vet etc" - not exactly since that could mean someone steals your dog keeps it well for a year and is the legal owner - nope.

Situations similar to this HAS happened -for instance when a rescue has rehomed a dog that turned out to be stolen.

The OP stated the pup was given away, hence they are not the legal owner. You can check it with Trevor Cooper if you don't believe me.

I gave a pup i had hand picked to use as a future stud to a close friend of one of my friends,stupidly didnt put it in writing but do have personel messages between us on record.She contacted me within a few weeks to say one of  his testicles hadnt dropped.I told her i would only use him as a stud if they both dropped but to give it time and not rush in to neutering him,i also said i wouldnt ask for money for him but that she had to keep in regular contact to let me know he was ok and to send pics.
so ive asked her to pay for him if she wants full rights because she certainly isnt going to keep in contact and im not giving someone a puppy fr free for no reason.

By the sound of it you have no rights to money, as you gave them the pup for free with the condition you could use him at stud. But you then told them that you wouldn't use him at stud if her testical didn't come down and that you didn't want money for him and to keep in contact. By the sound of it, it didnt come down and they had him neutered which is what a lot of vets advise when testicals are tetained. As they last contacted you last summer they could say they are upholding the contact you wanted as their idea on regular contact may be a once a year update. By the sound of it there was no agreement on what would happen if they didn't give as much contact as you wanted.

You may not be able to uphold the need to keep in regular contact as it may not be seen as a reasonable stipulation as it would be like saying you can only keep the pup if you only feed it bakers or only walk it on Tuesdays.

The police cant get involved since it is not a criminal issue - ownership of a dog is a civil issue so has nothing to do with the police in those circumstances.

the law is as follows:-

"In law, a dog is regarded as a 'chattel' ie. an item that is owned. In the event of a dispute on who should have custody, the Court would consider who is the dog's owner. Such a case is likely to be heard in the Small Claims Court (part of the County Court) and the claim would be for:
1.A declaration of ownership, and
2.An order for the return of the dog, and
3.An order for damages for wrongful retention of the dog

The Court may have regard to many factors including who bought the dog, whose name is registered with the Kennel Club and who is the one who actually looks after it. A Court may simply decide that the dog is jointly owned and in the absence of an agreement on who should have it, may order that the dog be sold and the proceeds shared. Another alternative, would be for the Court to order shared ownership, so that (for example) each party may have the dog for 6 months of the year this is something that is a likely compromise reached in matrimonial disputes. A Court cannot however order access to a dog.

In disputes between buyer and seller: There are no special laws that apply to a contract for the buying and selling of a dog. If a buyer simply changes their mind after purchase, they have no automatic right to return the dog and to require a refund.

Unless the seller sells dogs in the course of a business, then the principle of caveat emptor applies. This means 'let the buyer beware' ie. it is up to the buyer to satisfy themselves at the time of purchase that the dog is acceptable, and if it turns out to have defects they are unlikely to have any remedy. The situation is different if:-
1.The seller expressly stated things about the dog which were not true, or
2.If the seller sells dogs in the course of a business

If either of these situations apply, then the buyer may be able to take proceedings for their losses and/or may return the dog and demand a refund."

The Court may have regard to many factors including who bought the dog, whose name is registered with the Kennel Club and who is the one who actually looks after it.

That still falls more in favour of the owner than the breeder as the puppy was gifted to the owner who is now the one looking after it.

The breeder didn't want money for the pup, they cant now change there mind and want money later down the line.

The Court may have regard to many factors including who bought the dog, whose name is registered with the Kennel Club and who is the one who actually looks after it.

That still falls more in favour of the owner than the breeder as the puppy was gifted to the owner who is now the one looking after it.

The breeder didn't want money for the pup, they cant now change there mind and want money later down the line.


Agreed-ish - but you know, I only answered the posters question with my opinion on it  - OP asked about any opinions or information as to legal standing to her issue  - thats what I did, I commented stating several points of law that I could see and knew of that related to various parts of her situation but clearly said that the problem is that she had little to gain as a resolution  - I pointed out how it could go either way on some points and on others that even if winning the court would be unlikely to make any favourable judgement of any use to her situation and could potentially make unfavourable awards even if the point of law was won - I said that issues of ownership could technically be fought but that that too was fraught with ways that the Court could rule and that she didn't have much to gain, a potential of money etc loss - and strain on the relationship between her friend whose a friend also to the lady with the pup in question. Not really sure why everyone answered my post in the way they did. I didn't give any view as to whether in support of breeder/keeper the situation or whether the law is fair or not. I only answered what I felt were legal points related to her question and situation - ie. if there were any points of law that could be considered or taken to Court and whether it was worth doing (ie. no). I didn't say that she should. I didn't say what I thought about how the law stood on any of it personally. I also didn't say what I personally felt about it or would do. I just answered the question.

However - gifted - bought - bought by ways of agreement to anything other than money - are also complicated points. Just because no money changed hands doesn't mean an agreement wasn't made where the conditions agreed to were in effect the payment - buying doesn't always mean with money. But that's a whole different thing....and from the OPs outlined situation it does lean towards gifting.

Don't get me wrong I wasn't having a go at you or anything, hope it didn't come across that way.

no no jo don't worry - its just everyone answered that one post - didn't know if I had somehow made myself sound like I was giving a personal opinion or not or if it was just the one everyone pressed reply to - I'm not a touchy so and so I promise