So.

I have bought an adult bitch in for breeding - gsd

She is 24 months old. DM clear, elbows 0-0 and hips 4-6.

HOWEVER.
When the bitch was sold on to me they failed to mention an overbite the bitch had as a pup - this has since corrected itself. According to the previous owners at 9 weeks the overbite was 9mm, no change until about 7-8 months and by a 14 months, the bite was corrected.

I know overbites can be genetic although the genetics is unknown, but where an overbite has corrected itself would this still be considered a problem to not breed from these lines?
I have never experienced this before.

Finally.
The bitch is endorsed, the original contract states that the endorsement will be lifted on health tests hips+elbows. These have been done and the results are good. However, nowhere in the original contract is the overbite mentioned? Can the breeder refuse my application to lift the endorsements? The breeder is aware I have purchased the bitch for breeding and after the above-average health results from the 2 male pups the breeder kept back they seem happy with the bitch's results.

I am honestly annoyed the overbite as a pup was not mentioned to me during the sale process, but now I am more concerned that I have invested into a bitch that the original breeder might refuse to lift the endorcments.

She isn't overshot, why should anyone mention it? Pups grow at all different stages, and the lower jaw often takes longer to catch up, maybe not normally as much as 9mm (how do you know exactly) but it's not unusual for a pup to have a loose scissor bite, a small gap that corrects as pup grows.

As for endorsements, I have to say if I were the bitches breeder I wouldn't be happy about someone buying her solely for breeding, so I might keep the endorsements in place until I knew more about the new owner's intentions.

Thanks for the reply.

I wasn't sure if an overbite as a pup that has corrected was still a genetic concern for breeding from the lines. In regards to why they should have mentioned I personally would have done out of courtesy.
When I discussed this with the previous owners after the purchase they provided the vet report from then the pup was first taken to the vet. Their vet measured and photographed the overbite - not sure if this was routine for the vet practice or if at the previous owners request.

I know the breeder well and the breeder was aware as I said as to why we purchased her.

Your bitch isn't overshot & as the molars erupt last it is not unusual for a puppy to be marginally overshot until all the teeth are full erupted which can be as late as 7/8 months depend8ng on the breed & shape/length of muzzle. If I was looking for a show dog(which I am not)I personally wouldn't disregard a puppy with a slightly overshot jaw. Under shot jaws rarely become scisor bites as the lower molars are larger than the upper molars.

Endorsements require a signed contract between the two parties concerned. I'm really not sure what happens in the situation where an owner sells a dog onto another party. The contract would then somehow be between the original breeder and the third party, even though the contract was never signed by those two parties.

What this means, I don't know. The KC could throw the endorsement out and lift it very readily because they typically require signed contract from both parties.

It's an interesting question.

As for the teeth, surely what matters is what the teeth look like as an end result? Not what process they go through on the way there? Loads of dogs have different parts of their anatomy grow at different speeds to other parts and we don't assess them forevermore based on what they looked like at 8 months or whatever, we assess the current dog...

Endorsements require a signed contract between the two parties concerned. I'm really not sure what happens in the situation where an owner sells a dog onto another party.

It still stands and the reason for that is to not provide a loophole whereby somebody with an endorsed dog could get round it by transferring ownership to a friend or family member.

Unless the overshot jaw was corrected mechanically (by braces or banding, for instance) there's little cause for concern, because it's the final adult dentition that matters. If that's a normal scissor bite I can't see a problem.

> Unless the overshot jaw was corrected mechanically (by braces or banding, for instance) there's little cause for concern, because it's the final adult dentition that matters. If that's a normal scissor bite I can't see a problem.

Agreed.   But if you do want to breed from her, you should probably make sure you use a dog with no bite problems in his background!  It is, however, how the dog is on maturity that counts.

>It still stands and the reason for that is to not provide a loophole whereby somebody with an endorsed dog could get round it by transferring ownership to a friend or family member.

I get that, but the KC also say there needs to be signed evidence that the person the dog was sold to, is aware of the endorsement at point of sale (ie contract). If that person sells the dog onto another person without mentioning the endorsements or getting a contract signed, then the person who ends up with the dog may not be aware of the endorsements in the way the KC needs to occur for them to be upheld...?

>If that person sells the dog onto another person without mentioning the endorsements or getting a contract signed, then the person who ends up with the dog may not be aware of the endorsements in the way the KC needs to occur for them to be upheld...?

"4. Regulation B12b 1), 2) and 3) only apply where the registered owner who originally placed an endorsement on a dogs record, transfers the dog to a new ownership. If subsequent transfers take place, the endorsement becomes a matter between the parties involved. In such cases the registered owner placing the endorsement shall not be responsible if notification of the endorsement is not given to any new owner, and may exercise his right to decide whether the endorsement be maintained or removed subject to (5) below.

Taken from this KC publication.

Can someone translate that into English?

I think it means (if I am reading it right) that the breeder would have to get the papers transferred back to them and then transfer to new ownership. If the new owner instead transfers to a new ownership as a separate thing (not involving the breeder) then the endorsements can be lifted if the buyer decides they'd like to do that??

Is that right?

>Can someone translate that into English?

LOL! It means that, if the buyer sells the dog on, transferring the registration directly, it's not the breeder's fault if the endorsements aren't explained, and that the breeder's permission will still be required to lift the endorsements.

The opposite. It is only the breeders responsibility to prove the new owner knows about the endorsements when they make the initial transfer. Any further transfers  between the first owner and another no longer mean the endorsements will be lifted for the second owner without the breeders permission even though they may not have been told about them or signed the contract to confirm they have been notified. It closes the loop hole of changing ownership to circumvent the breeders placing of endorsements.

Oh right, ok... It's not very clear??

>In such cases the registered owner placing the endorsement shall not be responsible if notification of the endorsement is not given to any new owner, and may exercise his right to decide whether the endorsement be maintained or removed ....

Quite clear when you look at the basic statement, removing the clauses.