Hi,
Could anybody tell me if both parents have to have or be carriers of cateracts  to pass onto their offspring ? only my friend has a year old Boston Terrier who may have the start of juvinile cateract..i rang the breeder who said it was impossible as the father had been eye tested but couldnt confirm if the mother had..but found out today that she hadnt been tested !! Any advise please ??

From what I understand both parents would be carriers, it is possible that the one of both could have recessive genes that would not have shown at the time of mating. :-(

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=1025&d=pg_dtl_art_news&h=238&f=0

There is a DNA test now available,a nd if the sire was tested as clear then he should not be able to produce it in his offspring, which is what I hope the breeder meant, unless of course the bitch was actually affected (not just a carrier) .

If they meant that he had simply been eye tested as unaffected, he could be clear or a carrier, therefore mating him to an untested bitch was very unwise, as even with both tested unaffected if they were both carriers (no-ones fault as they wouldn't' know), then some affected pups could result, but pups should have been screened as a litter I believe, to see if any were affected.

Here is an article on the condition in the breed: http://www.bostonterrierclubofamerica.org/health/Cataractarticle.pdf

Thanks for the answers..a very good point when you said it was unwise to mate with an untested bitch, i bought this dog for my friend thinking i was going to the best breeder for Boston Terriers and having read all the paperwork which came with her i was led to believe that all the breeders  breeding stock was eye tested..today i found out that the bitch was not.. i rang the breeder who said that the bitch wasn't one of hers, i was told by her that the puppy couldn't have cateracts as its impossible and is prob an ulcer although the vet has said this is not the case. I feel that the breeder has lied when she said that all her stock was eye tested and not sure what to do next..maybe the legal line as my friend really wanted her bitch to have one litter and to show her but if she does have cateracts then none of this can be done...£1500 is an awful lot of money to have spent on a pup that i believe has been sold to me without true honesty...again any idea's or just bad luck....Saying all of this doesnt take away the fact that she's a great little dog with a fabulous character.

but pups should have been screened as a litter I believe, to see if any were affected.


This from Brainless is the crucial point between 8-12 weeks the Bostons should have been screened, so easily avoidable for this to have happened, especially knowing why the pup was wanted. A well versed breeder should have done so.

I don't know how your friend feels, but once all vet tests are finalised and obviously with writing from the vet confirming, (if the breeder does not know) how the cataracts have come to be, I think she is absolutely entitled to some sort of refund so that she can buy in a pup for showing and breeding purposes, as obviously the breeding part could not go ahead, for me the breeder was responsible to do the tests on the pups before sale.

I know sometimes legally with things like this refunds are eligable, whereas in many cases with other health issues they are not.

Perhaps an enquiry to the breed club would be a good source for how you would stand with this particular problem and whether Boston breeders are required by the breed club to do the puppy tests or not.

With the DNA tests now available the eye tests for this condition are really redundant.

It needs to be established if the dog was genetically clear by DNA test, as then he could not have sired a litter with affected pups unless the bitch was actually suffering from cataract.

What does the pups registration certificate say against parents, eye tested or details of DNA test?  I woudl contact the breed club also.

Is it just a normal vet that you've gone to?  It's just that one of my dogs has lenses that never developed at birth.  A normal vet may think that it is cataracts as it has a similiar appearance to the untrained eye but the eye specialist assured me that it definitely wasn't cataracts and that there is no hereditary problem with her (he's actually written it on her paperwork)!

Go to a specialist and ensure that you've got the right diagnosis.

You need to see one of the BVA eye panelists a list can be foudn here:http://www.bva.co.uk/public/chs/EP_list_January_2008-__2__BC_update.pdf

I am going to see the vet tomorrow with my friend as couldn't get an app with the optomologist vet today which we will do asap, we will ask about getting a dna kit aswell..regarding were both parents cleared we were told yes they both were and on the paperwork it says all stock is eye checked which made us believe that the litter was done as were the parents which inturn we now find out is not the case, If she does have a juvinile cateract then i will do as has been suggested and go through the proper channels to have the cost of the dog plus vet bills back so at the very least be able to buy another dog for my friend..a different breeder though !! anyhow will now wait and see what her diagnosis is.There are still many unanswered questions including why would any reputable breeder would put her cleared dog to an untested bitch !!

> There are still many unanswered questions including why would any reputable breeder would put her cleared dog to an untested bitch !!

Has the breeder been asked this.

The stud dog owner (the breeder is the the bitch owner) probably assumed that as her dog was clear (if DNA clear) that he could not produce the problem so the bitches status was not important, but that would only be true if the bitch was clear or carrier not if she were affected.

If the dog were only eye tested unaffected (not the same thing), then of course he could be a carrier as could the bitch if she were eye tested, and quite innocently an affected could be produced, that is the beauty of the DNA tests they tell you who the carriers are, as well as the clinically affected.

Many people do not really quite understand the genetics sadly, so I wouldn't be too hard on the breeder, until all facts are known.

What does the pups reg cert say.  Was the sire eye tested unaffected or DNA tested clear.  Was the bitch ever eye tested, were the litter screened etc?

You should speak to your local Trading Standards department. As far as the law goes, puppies, like every other thing you buy, have to be 'fit for purpose' and this puppy would seem to not fulfil that criteria.

The dog goes to have her certified eye test mid June and will see what that says, regarding trading standards i will be taking legal advice as like you say all thing have to fit for purpose where monies have changed hands..as this story unfolds we are finding out  a few other things that need answering..one of things being that i bought this little dog last year going to the breeder that i thought had a very reputable reputation and that the dog would have the breeders affix....No...she has no affix at all..so again for breeding purposes etc it doesnt look as good as if she did have the affix, i really do feel on top of if she does have an eye problem then i have been sold this dog with misrepresentation by the breeder, i have emailed them today with my questions and will await some answers but will certainly be taking some legal advise.

Is this person just a seller then?  Sounds very strange when you say that she's the breeder but then say that the bitch wasn't actually hers!! 

I will try and answer this as easily as i can as i'm a complete novice when it comes to sires/dams etc..i rang this particular breeder who i researched to buy a bitch puppy, i went to them thinking i was buying a puppy with this breeders affix, i bought her for a friend of mine who when received the registration papers saw that both the sire and the dam were in fact not belonging to the breeder of where i collected the puppy from..the sire has the breeders affix but the dam has no affix at all, on the paperwork it says that both sire and dam belong to someone completly different than who i was led to believe owned them, in my previous mail i mistakingly said that the sire belonged to the breeder who i liased with throughout but have since found that he has the affix  only and didn't belong to them, since my first phone call to this breeder enquiring to see if they had any bitches available i was not informed that both sire and dam weren't the kennel/breeders own stock and that they seem to have been bought in...does this make sense ? i hope so

The pedigree that i was given on collection of the puppy was on headed paper it stated the  kennel name that i was dealing with and when the  registration came through it says something completly different..she was not bought from someones "Living room" but proper kennels..i was led to believe that she was  ?????? puppy but the registration says differnt to the pedigree.

Sad to say it does begin to seem as if this person is one of those who buy in pups to re-sell. Has this puppy got Kennel Club registration papers? If the details on the receipt you got when you collected the puppy does not match those on the registration papers you definitely have a case. If it does have Kennel Club registration they will wish to know that you do not have the puppy you bought and so would a court of law.

I really can't think that she would buy puppies in for re sale as such a reputable breeder etc..on the receipt it says the monies were for a boston terrier female and then lists the names of the sire and dam..it is signed by the person who  own the kennels/breeders who i thought owned the sir/dam, the registration papers say the owners are a different couple.

Ah! so it is the names of the owners that are different not the names of the dam and sire. You still have not said if the registration is with the Kennel Club or some other registration.

It maybe that the breeder you dealt with had some kind of breeding terms with the people on the registration documents where by they were owed a puppy or puppies back for dogs previously transfered to them and this could be the puppy the person you dealt with has then sold onto you. However I would have expected this to have been made clear to you. Did you go to see the litter with its mother at all?

Yes she is kc registered.

No i didn't see mum nor was offered, i live in the southand the kennels were a 6 hour drive away so i took the puppy home on the same day as we met her..had one photo of her emailed about 2 weeks beforehand.

I have received an email from the kennels where i bought her and they said that they were in partnership with the breeder and the pup was pick of the litter, she went on and on about how wonderful her lines are etc etc and that the puppy is from fabulous stock naming show winning relatives etc..although still hasn't answered why she has no affix or why the sire was put to cover an untestested dam...oh and said that she would be seeking legal advice regarding some of my comments in my coversation to her which she felt could be slanderous if spoken to others !!

If they were in partnership with the dogs but not with the affix then the Kennel club wouldnt allow the affix to be used.

It sounds as if the sire was bred by the person you bought the pup from, and that the bitch belonged to someone else.

Who is listed as the breeder of the pup, as it is possible to enter into a loan of bitch agreement whereby a bitch can be lent for the purposes of a litter to someone else, and they are then the breeder of the litter.

It could be that the last of the breeders line was the male, and they borrowed a bitch from someone in order to have a litter to keep a up of their male line.

Just for arguments sake my youngest bitch who I want to breed from turns out sterile, or god forbid dies.

I could for example persuade a friend with a  nice bitch to lend her to me and use the brother of the bitch I could not breed from, and thereby preserve my lien.

Neither sire or Dam would belong to me, but the litter would be registered as mine.

There is nothing to say a breeder needs to have an affix, and a few famous breeders never bothered to have one, but most breeders like to have one as it is like a trademark, or surname.  In this case the dog has the persons affix?

Thank you for that explanation, it's beginning to make sense to the novice me ! When i chose this particular breeder i did so in thinking after doing my research that they were one of the very best i could get a pup from and that she would be registered as affix "Kennel Name....then dogs name", she doesn't have this name at all, in fact no affix, the registration says that both sire/dam are owned by someone else just the sire has the affix that i thought the pup would have.
Along with the still unanswered question that why was the dam covered without being eye tested in the first place by the breeder, even though on the paperwork from the kennels said that "All our stock are eye tested" this according to the kennel club is not the case saying that the dam hasn't been.,
I do appreciate all your answers in making this a little clearer to me..:)

> "All our stock are eye tested"

Would expect them to argue that the pup you bought was not their stock, however that should have been pointed out to you as soon as you made an enquiry.

It could of course be that the bitch was eye tested as part of her litter,a nd those details do not appear on the registration forms, as they are not for an individual as such though each puppy is checked of course.

As this is juvenile cataract perhaps if the bitch was part of a litter being screened it wasn't deemed necessary to test her again.  It can sometimes be difficult to get a litter to a specialist at the right time (also distance travelling) so many would opt for testing individually when older, and maybe this is what happened with the Male.

I am in a breed that is eye tested annually and it has enable us to limit the incidence of pups affected with eye problems, but of course it can't identify carriers, so at present they cannot be completely eliminated, and you don't know an animal is a carrier until it chances to be mated with another unknown carrier and an affected pup is produced.

Now DNA testing overcomes this problem, but it may take many years to develop a test as in order to do so you need affected and thus also proven carrier animals to compare to others to find the faulty genes, and this can take a long time as quite rightly breeders have striven to not produce affected animals..

The test in your breed I believe is very new, so the breeder may not be at fault at all, believing with the evidence available (eye tests) that the dogs were clear.

You should be able to contact the breed club to clarify this issue and the procedures in place.  This is a numerically small breed in this country and has caring breeders, so if this is someone respected in the breed community it may not be a matter of neglect, but unavoidable misfortune.

From your posts it isn't clear whether the dogs were DNA tested (or not) individually eye tested (or not) or litter screened (or not), the answers to these questions will make all the difference as to whether there is any fault with the seller of your pup, though doesn't change her condition if she has one, which will become clear when an expert BVA eye panel ophthalmologist examines her.

When the puppy has her eye test on the 19th we'll know for sure if it ia a cateract or not, my friend has been searching the pedigree on the dams side and it does look as though they have been cleared so fingers crossed..i am though now going to take some legal advise this week regarding that i thought i was buying a puppy with the kennel name of where i bought her from and as ive said before i had no correspondence with anyone else but with the owners of the kennel, all the paperwork/pedigree leading me to believe that she was a ???? puppy.. i can only liken this to going to the Gucci store, buying a coat and then later on finding out that it was made by marks and spencers but sold in Gucci at their price.
(nothing bad about m&s though :) )

The thing that I do not understand is..........The DAM or SIRE are not registered under her name or address?

The Sire has her Affix - so obviously is a pup which she bred now owned by someone else.  So I guess we shall call this breeder the foundation breeder?

You contacted her for a pup, she obviously told you of a litter from her line (The Sire) being mated. She obviously is not in joint ownership of this male or her name and address would be on the transfer of ownership.

So, why is she even involved in the sale? Surely as a breeder what I would do is direct you to the Dam's owner who has the in whelp bitch and is raising and selling the pups, should this not have been the person you were dealing with, people don't often sell pups via a Sire, that they may have bred but don't own.  The DAM obviously was not even on her premises, everything is being done third party, unless the Dam and Sire are abroad, but you have not mentioned import, quarantine etc. etc. so they must both be in this country, you traveled 6 hours to the foundation breeder, so the actual breeder could not have been much further or even closer to yourself?

None of it makes sense to me, if I were you you should have the actual breeders name and address on your transfer of ownership, I would contact the real breeder for the honest truth of what has happened and go from there, you have certainly be misled, and sold a pup in the most strange of circumstances.

Could be the stud was sold on breeding terms (not that common but does happen) and the agreement was that the studs breeder had a puppy back from a litter by him.

If you are keen to be involved with this breed seriously I think I would hold off on getting legal and upsetting people when there may be perfectly simple explanation to the whole situation, and the pup may not even have the condition.

It's not worth getting everyone upset and then finding you have to back down.

As to the pup having a particular affix that is not that relevant.

I have bred a litter under my affix from a bitch I didn't own, and is not really closely related to the rest of my dogs (her parents were half siblings of my foundation bitch).  On the other hand I have sold a bitch to someone who used another dog I bred.  Which litter is more of my liens, the one with my affix or the one bred by another with more of my dogs in it?

Many stud dog owners have pups who do not carry their famous affix but may be generation of their breeding on the sires side.  Could be by their current top dog out of a bitch by a previous dog they had.  Not their affix but certainly mostly their breeding.

An Affix is simply a surname, you can have cousins who carry your name and those that do not, but they are still just the same your family.

This is why we tend to say such a kennel's lines rather than worry about which affix the individual dog might carry.

Just reread earlier posts and wanted to clarify as to possibilities.

With a recessive condition if dogs are eye tested unaffected they can be either clear or carriers for the problem.

The DNA test (became available at the end of 2006) will tell you if a dog is affected, clear or Carrier.

To produce affected puppies either both parents have to be carriers (clinically unaffected, but able to pass on the faulty gene) or affected, depending on which they are the offspring statistically would in the first case be 1/4 affected 1/2 carrier (clinically unaffected, but able to pass on the faulty gene) 1/4 clear.  Two affecteds would produce all affected offspring.

An affected and a clear would produce 100% carrier pups (clinically unaffected, but able to pass on the faulty gene).

An affected to a carrier would produce 1/2 affected and 1/1 clear.

An affected to an affected would produce all affected offspring.

A carrier to a clear would produce half clear and half Carrier, indistinguishable from each other except by DNA.  This is the usual way that recessive health problems continue to be produced by the innocent use of carriers, when there is no DNA test available.

Yes, she didn't own either dam or sire, she has just sent me a snotty email saying that she refuses to correspond with me any more but also said that she owned the puppy i bought!! how can that be when her name doesn't appear on the registration document with no transfer details or anything, she certainly wasn't from abroard either..she said she was in partnership with the puppies mothers breeder and the pup was the pick of the litter, she also said that she told me that she didn't breed her which she certainly didn't otherwise i wouldn't have gone to this particular kennel.

Hi annee, as cateracts can be a health issue with the Boston, I guess in all probablility you and your vet are correct in your inital diagnoses.

Although I agree entirely with Brainless that until you have refuitable proof from the experts - hold off any further action.

I think from what I have read now, that you have a major problem if things are the way I now percieve, so........

I have some more questions for you. :-)

We know that the person you bought your pup from is not the breeder, does not own the Sire or the Dam and has no joint ownership with either and her name on no paperwork at all.

If this as Brainless has suggested is the true scenario that she had an agreement with the Sire's owner that she could have a pup from his first litter, so a pup would have been used in exchange of a stud fee by the Dam's owner. The Sire's owner could then have asked the breeder of the Dam to offer pick of the litter pup to the foundation breeder instead of the stud fee. That bit is ok.

But, personally, I see no point in her having pick of the litter to sell on immediately even before transfer of ownership, what is the point of it all?  If she just wanted the price of a pup why did the Sire's owner not just pay her the money instead of offering a pup in the first place.............. I am lost to understand this. But in any case it may be of no consequence.

So from you, where exactly in all of this did you come in asking for a pup?

Did you come in when all the litter was already sold on and the foundation breeder just had the pup that was already 'purchased' ?
Or did you come in at the beginning?
Have you misunderstood that the foundation breeder was selling her own pup?
Or did she lie that she had a litter and was choosing you pick of the litter?

You see you may have a major problem here, you have from what I understand now, purchased a pup as a second owner, you did not buy from the breeder, the fact that she did not transfer ownership is not a crime in itself, many people forget or don't do that, but ownership is no longer with the person who bred it once passed on. You yourself have not dealt with the breeder in anyway, therefore you have not asked about eye testing etc from the breeder.

The foundation breeder did not breed the pup, has no legal ownership connection to the Dam or Sire, so regretably has no contract with you the buyer for any health problems with the pup.

You have bought a pup from a reputable breeder who stresses eye tests etc on their own breeding stock, this pup is not her stock, she has no legal implications to answer to, and as you did not communicate with the breeder she also has made no faulse promise of eye tested stock to you either.

You have bought a pup from a 'reputable' breeder that was not her stock.

Now legally what you need to honestly say is did you think you were buying one of her pups, with all the eye test clarifictions on paper, or did she tell you it was one of her pups with everything tested etc.

Or did she tell you that it was not bred by her but just of her line.

Legally unfortuntaley you may now have no case, you need to work out the difference between exactly what you were told and have in writing and what you perceived to know.

Hi,
This is how the whole transaction took place, i wanted to buy a boston, did my research and chose this particular breeder, rang them up and enquired if they had any litters availble as i was looking for a bitch for a friend of mine, they said they had a bitch available that was roughly 2 weeks old and would be ready in about 6 weeks, i then sent off a holding deposit for her and requested that they could send me a photo of her to show my friend, they sent one roughly 5 weeks later, i didn't get the photo earlier as they stated that they didn't have their camera at that time and that the pups just looked like blobs.i arranged to pick her up from their kennels on a certain day which i did, i said that my friend would like to have a litter from the pup in due course and that my friend also likes to do a bit of showing, the person who owns the kennels said to make sure that she bought the pup back to be put with one of her dogs when the time came to breed from her. at no time was i told that this dog wasn't bred by herself although she said she told me this which again she didn't. i was given all the paperwork relating to the puppy on headed paper from the kennels and i went on my way with the puppy after handing over the money and that was that. Now the kennel owner who sold me the puppy says that she owned the puppy but all the paperwork relating to her says otherwise, i will speak to someone in animal law about this as it's rather stressful not knowing how the breeding/registration/sale of puppies really works.
Thanks for all your help

I didn't feel there was a need to ask if the pup was eye tested as the paperwork says that all the stock was, and also why would have i felt the need to ask if the pup was a ???? bred pup when i only ever spoke and had corrospondence with the kennel and their name directly either via email or phone..at no time was i ever told that she was anything but a ????? puppy as ive said before i would never ever have parted which such a large amount of money otherwise.

Yes, someone in animal law would be very good to show everything that you have.

The paperwork with their kennel name, address etc on, is that to do with care, feeding, general advice, receipt etc.

Is the pedigree a handwritten or printed one with their kennel name on it. Or a Kennel Club pedigree?

Were you given the KC transfer of ownership there and then........... and it definitely has a different address for stud and dam? This needed to be signed by the owner when you collected it, with date of purchase, was it already signed when you collected it?  Or signed in your presence?  Very important if you can remember.

I believe that dogs are sold and bought in the same way as any other goods and the same rules apply. The pup must be suitable for purpose and there must be no intention to defraud. I would be speaking to the trading standards if you really think you have been mislead.

It has just struck me, why is this breeder getting hot under the collar when all that was needed was for a full explanation to be given. It does lead one to believe that something is being covered up or is not quite as represented.   There may be a case to answer in this devious behaviour alone never mind what the full story turns out to be.

I have the pedigree printed out but on the reverse is written the kennel name, address, tel no, and conditions of sale when buying a ????? puppy ( and then the conditions listed), i have i diet sheet for puppy again all on headed kennel name paper,i have a ???? boston terriers problem awareness sheet listing such things as slipping patella and cateracts stating that "All our stock are screened and free from jc" the sales receiept has been filled in by hand  but i think has been printed by our dogs publishing co beforehand..the details handwritten are as follows..........NO (left blank) NAME (left blank) BREED..Boston Terrier, DATE OF BIRTH..**/**/**, COLOUR..Brindle, SIRE..Then his name with the kennels affix, DAM..NO affix then her name, INJECTIONS AND DATE (left blank), RECEIVED FROM..then my friends name and address as the dog was going to be hers not mine, THE SUM OF..£1500 IN PAYMENT FOR THE ABOVE DOG, CONDITIONS OF SALE (IF ANY) AND REMARKS..to carry on insurance, SIGNED..the kennel owner..DATE..the sale date.
i also have a compliment slip again saying the kennel name and "With compliments of ( the kennel owners name listed with the address.and thats all i what i was given.
Yes i was given the kc transfer of ownership and this was already signed was it was given to me, my friend sent that off to get her ownership registered and i will call the kennel club on tuesday to find out whose signiture was on it when i bought the pup.
As for the owner of the dam we are not 100% of the sires owner owns her but again will find this out on tuesday.

Also i have a confirmation of cover voucher with pet plan as she came with 6 weeks insurance..it says Breeders name (the husband has printed his name) and Breeders signature ( and he has signed it)

Your ok annee, no worries,

Even if she did not breed the pup, she has given you all the information and back up from the kennel as though it were one of her home reared pups, with all the same promises of eye checks etc, so regardless of who bred it, as everything is on her kennel papers with guarantees and sold as though it is one of her pups you are legally fine.

Make sure all paper work is kept, you were very, very, misled, and I have never known business to be done in this way.

Not to be rude the other thing that is extremely strange is why would anyone sell a pup to someone buying for a friend, for the price and the reputation this breeder seems to broadcast, it is very unproffessional to sell a pup without proper screaning, I would at the very least wish to speak to the owner, myself I would want to meet them too.

Everything smells puppy farm to me, the whole way of business, but aparantely this is a good breeder that you have searched out so I guess it isn't.

Good luck annee, get everything prepared via vet, animal lawyer etc, and let us all know how you get along.

Hi Carrington,

You have been more than helpful in this matter and i thank you very much, i will let you all know the outcome in due course.
Puppy farm ? Most definatly not.(i can pm you their name if you wish but i know that some people wouldn't wish to know)

Thanks one again

Annee

Make sure all paper work is kept, you were very, very, misled, and I have never known business to be done in this way.

Not to be rude the other thing that is extremely strange is why would anyone sell a pup to someone buying for a friend, for the price and the reputation this breeder seems to broadcast, it is very unproffessional to sell a pup without proper screaning

Completely agree.

A friend of mine has just registered a litter in his name for the person who bred it. However, he had bred the bitch and owned the sire. The owner did not have an affix but the bitch was tranferred into his name for the litter. All new owners were fully aware that the bitch had been bred by him and tranferred back into his name for the litter. So, as it can be done this way, why all the underhandedness?. I think this is very odd and I most certainly would follow up as much as you can. I thing you have been very undersold.

Also all the health tests were fully completed.

This is actually quite common in some breeds - a breeder sells all their dog puppies on breeding terms and the bitch puppies are only sold on the condition that they remain in part ownership of the breeder until after a ltter. Thus any puppies from these bitches will not have the breeder's affix. However, as Brainless pointed out, these pups will carry far more of the breeder's own lines than would a puppy bought in by the breeder from another kennel, and then mated to an outside stud dog.

There are perfectly acceptable reasons for the confusion felt by the purchaser, I just wonder, when asked, the vendor of the puppy did not explain.

I'm not sure why no explanation given..maybe she's trying to think of one ! I am ringing the kennel club in the morning to see whose name was on the registration documents when given to me although not signed in front of me, my friends calling me miss marple at the moment but i'm afraid i'm not someone who is just going to go away in this matter and will do all i can to get to the bottom of it.

It will say on your documents who the breeder is, so you don't need to contact the KC.

Having spoken to the kennel club this morning i have found that the "Breeder" who emailed me to say that she didn't breed the puppy but owned her has in fact never owned her, the puppy along with Dam and Sire were all owned by the same person, the mystery deepens bit is now in the hands of my lawers and they will take over this  deepening mystery.

Think you are making a bit too much of a mystery over this. If this was a 'breeding terms' puppy the woman you bought her from would not have bothered to transfer ownership into her name if she had no intention of keeping it. Surprising as it may seem, KC registration papers are NOT proof of ownership.

I think Trading Standards should be contacted over this.