Hi Natasha here, thanks for the replies to my post. However, i am a breeder and i do put endorsements on my dogs so i understand endorsement and why we place them. The dog has a contract that once the health checks are done and are satisfactory that the restrictions WILL BE LIFTED! The contract says

" eyes must be unaffected by hc and g and hip score must below 12 (combined score of both hips). Once these health checks have been carried out and are satisfactory, please send certificates of the health test and i will happily lift the restrictions and assist to help you with your breeding program to retain a desirable line."

Although she is aware of my bitches line and approves its quality: and has used a stud i have bred, her reason to not lift the restrictions was quite blunt.  Simply she did not want to as i was not the original dog owner and i am a breeder so therefore i am competition???????????????
This has greatly upset me as before the dog was re-homed with me my friend did ring her to tell her she may have to re-home the dog. The breeder said she couldn't take the dog back and didn't seem at all interested where the dog would end up.

So i am seeking advice as to whether this document is legally binding as the contract is nothing to with me and i have done all the necessary health check. Can the kennel club over turn her decision as all her requirements stated in the contract have been met? thanks.

Well I am not sure about leagally, but morally the contract does apply.  This in fact puts you in a stronger position as the contract contains the clause about the lifing of the endorsement.

I expect in such a case the KC will consider lifting it, unless the breeder can show good reason to not uphold their end of the contract (to lift them on production of satisfactory health screening results).

I cannot understand the attitude of the breeder if their reasoning is to stop competition!!!

If the breeder has another dog with the same parentage that SHE uses at stud then she won't want to have your dog out there being used as a stud. The restrictions should stand, you were aware of them when you rehomed the dog

Also, guests can only post once, you will need to register :)

I would think thatr a very poor reason, and if that is it then why write in a clause to the agreement when pup was sold that the endorsement would be lifted if health tests carried out.

for me the only legitimate reason for not liftin the endorsements if the case is as is stated, would be if the new owner were unethical in their breeding practices, but would still think that the original contract should stand, and the endorsement be lifted.

Maybe breeders who do not want a pup to be bred from if passed on should right that into the clause on whether they would lift the endorsemet, or simply have the endorsement in place with no lifting clause, then they won't be breaking the terms of the contract.

I am not sure about the legal side but I assumed that all terms and conditions are transfered with ownership.  Certainly restrictions applying to land and it's use goes from one owner to the next.  If things didn't hold when dogs were sold on then there would be no point to endorsements at all.

My point was that it could be the reason why she won't life them now :)

If it was me then I would go and see a solicitor to see where I stand or if not contact the KC direct.  At the end of the day they can only say no.  Personally when I do a puppy contract one of the conditions of sale is I would only lift the endorsement if the dog is still with the original owner.  Presumably there is no mention of this on the contract? If there isnt I would imagine it would be quite hard for them to refuse to have it lifted but this is only my opinion.

As always we only have one sode of the picture :D  This is the type of case where the Kennel Club will need to rule whether there is legitimate reason not to lift the endorsement when the original contract stated they would be after health testing.

If someone actually writes the conditions where endorsements will be lifted and doesn't put a clause in saying that this is exclusive to the first purchaser then the KC will lift them as long as the conditions have been met. To me that seems very clear :-))

If someone wants control even futher then they are best to sell with endorsements and actually stating it is a pet purchase only and the endorsements will never be lifted in the contract.    Putting the breeding conditions in opens up the arguement that the breeder knew the dog would likely be bred from once it had met these conditions.