Hi

I don't know if anyone can shed any light on the above for me.

A friend of mine was told by the breeder of her pup that the KC endorsements would be removed once the hips were scored with acceptable results and a clear eye certificate issued.

The dog in question has done exceptionally wel in the ring, qualifying for Crufts several times - and now the time is approaching for the tests to be done.  She contacted the breeder, who confirmed that she would lift them for the price of a pup (i.e. a lot of money) - this was never mentioned when she purchased the pup and is certainly not commonplace in our breed - I would never dream of charging if the owner had met the pre-specified criteria.

Can anyone shed any light on whether this is commonplace in other breeds?  and any other thoughts you may have on the matter.

Does it make any mention of additional money to be paid in the contract which sets out the endorsements?

M.

No - and no mention was made of it at the time of the sale - we know the KC does not charge to remove the endorsements as clearly stated on their website - but of course now it is coming out that this is not the first time this has happened with said breeder :(

and I guess the key questions have to be - does the breeder have the owner over a barrel and would it fall under 'unfair contract terms'?

It may be worth making the KC aware that this breeder does this.

Well until the actual tests are done with good results there is very little that can be done. Then it would depend weather the contract merely informs the purchaser that the puppy is endorsed or if it states conditions for the endorsements to be lifted, if the latter and they have fulfilled the conditions then they may  consider approaching the Kennel Club about the matter. However I do not know how it will be viewed or weather the KC would intervene. So unfortunately they maybe over a barrel as you say :(

Hi, I have had a bad experience with the breeder of my bitch too. The contract stated that the endorsements would be lifted a) If the hip score was below 20 b) the bitch was over two years old.  My bitch was hip scored (£170) 6:3 and was over two when I approached the breeder to request that the endorsements be lifted. The breeder agreed but did not lift them, the K.C told me that as the contract had been placed correctly they would not do anything but recommended I seek legal advice! Now I am in the position of owning a bitch that I can go no further with, I told the breeder that she was to be a foundation bitch when I bought her. This is a terribly unfair situation and is doing nothing to protect dogs as the people that want to just breed will do so anyway regardless of paperwork and health checks. This situation must be costing the K.C a huge amount of lost revenue. Where is the protection for genuine people like myself?

>>>She contacted the breeder, who confirmed that she would lift them for the price of a pup (i.e. a lot of money) - this was never mentioned when she purchased the pup and is certainly not commonplace in our breed <<<

I was under the assumption that the KC didnt take recognise an endorsement unless there was a written contract?

A written contract should be in place to protect both parties. 

A contract saying restrictions will be lifted for price of pup is RUBBISH.  I life restrictions once health tests have been completed, pup/dog proven in ring and the fact that I approve bitch/sire.

I am sorry but money should not come into it - she sounds like a puppy farmer to me wanting to earn money and should be named and shamed!!!!

Forget what was said at the time of sale etc and what your freind has said what does it say in the contract they both would have signed.

If you get that exact information word for word then we can advise.  Unfortunately NOBODY can advise exactly otherwise.

Please bare in mind though, hip scores and qualifying for Crufts doesn't necessarily merit the dog is good enough to breed from. Is it a dog or a bitch? assuming it is a bitch.

>>> Forget what was said at the time of sale etc and what your freind has said what does it say in the contract they both would have signed.<<<

Im sure that if no contract was signed then then the endorsment isnt binding

Im sure that if no contract was signed then then the endorsment isnt binding

Exactly Lel. :-)

My point is, speculation about what was said but the poster ( not disrespect to the poster of course)  won't give an answer. If there is a written contract we need to know exactly what is in it if there isn't then the person needs to write to the KC stating this.

Please bare in mind though, hip scores and qualifying for Crufts doesn't necessarily merit the dog is good enough to breed from. Is it a dog or a bitch? assuming it is a bitch.

As a breeder myself, I am well aware of this; however, in our breed with its numbers, from an unknown, it is relatively good indicator  - although to say the owner of the CH sire was spitting when he saw him gives you another indicator. 

The breeder refused any part in selecting the pup most suited for show and she has that in writing - the wording on the contract was simply that the dog had restrictions, the initial agreement re:  lifting was verbal - but she now also has this in writing. 

As a dog, there is clearly different 'indicators' on whether he will ever be used for breeding - nevertheless, the bewilderment and anger stems from the fact that at present the choice has effectively been removed - very unethically IMHO.

My point is, speculation about what was said but the poster ( not disrespect to the poster of course)  won't give an answer.

The poster was in bed as she was up at 5am this morning and just whipping her own gang off to a show - so if I don't post again until this evening, its not because I can't give answers, but because I am not here.

Did she pay full price of it at the time of getting it?  I've never ever heard anyone asking for the pup to be paid for again once all the tests have been done.

Also contracts are supposedly not legal, so I'm surprised with the information that you gave the KC that they won't lift the endorsements. 

I had problems with the 'breeder' when I bought my dobe bitch. I had contacted them when the litter first arrived and explained straight away that I may like to breed a litter from her in the future. We kept in contact from the start and they allowed me to have pick of litter which was lovely and we set off to get her when she was 7 weeks old. A 5 hour drive later we arrive and look at all the puppies, it took hours to decide as you can imagine only to find when the papers were handed over that she had endorsements on her registration. As you can imagine I wasn't impressed but, they assured me they would lift it as soon as she was 2 years old and I was happy with that of course. Unfortunately, once she did reach 2 and I contacted them they said that they would lift them if, they choose the stud for me to use and they had pick of litter !!!!!!!!!! I was furious and contacted the Kennel Club to find out what could be done. Luckily for me there had been no contract signed at the time of sale but, as I told them exactly what had happened they wouldn't lift them still saying that I did know they were on there even if it was just at the last minute. The fact that I had had my girl hip scored, eye tested and DNA tested for VWD didn't seem to matter :-(
Anyway, I wasn't going to be blackmailed and told the breeder that I would be taking it to court. They lifted them the very next day thankfully and it didn't get that far. I think there are far too many bullies out there who will blackmail people to get a bit of extra cash. I wish you well and hope the Kennel Club do step in and get them removed for you asap.

Debbie 

Thank you Debbie  & glad you sorted your own problem :)  It isn't one of my dogs (thank goodness) - but I did have a hand in finding this particular litter - and hence I am feeling very angry, and also a touch guilty - but of all the potential problems you could envisage, this was never one that crossed my mind :(  - I have got some info to update my friend with but haven't been able to speak to her yet - but it sounds like she could be going a similar route :(

What I do know is that if I have cause to buy in, I will be scrutinising any T&C's a lot more carefully :(

Did she pay full price of it at the time of getting it?  I've never ever heard anyone asking for the pup to be paid for again once all the tests have been done.


Yes, she did pay full price for the pup, and was quite explicit about her requirements and possible intentions at the time - so yes, she would effectively be paying for the pup twice :(

This happened to us a few years ago.
My bitch had had all her tests done and i had an arrangement with the stud dog owner that his endorsments would be lifted ( he had his tests all ok and he was a Champion )
My bitch was mated and i thought that all was ok so did the stud dog owner.
Only to get a phone call from the stud dog owner to find out that his endorments would not be lifted unless she payed his breeder £1000.
I was dumbstruck , my bitch had already been mated.
The KC were contacted and not interested, as far as they are concerned only the breeder can lift the endorsments and if the breeder is asking for more money then it has to be payed.
We had my bitch scanned at four weeks and luckely she had missed.
I found out later that the stud dog owner had actualy paid the money but the endorsments still have not been lifted.

Peanuts

I wonder what would happen if a puppy was sold with the new owner having stated they wanted to show, and if successful to breed and bring out their own line. Should said puppy do well, and at 12 mths be hip scored and it was found to have a high hip score, what come back would the owner have (if any) against the breeder. Obviously it matters not if the restrictions are lifted, because the dog may not be suitable to breed from. However, if the hips are not all the dog, and it was decided to carefully chose a stud dog, yet the breeder still refuses to remove the restrictions, would the breeder be liable for faulty goods?

Things may have change of late because I believe that unless the breeder has a contract signed by the puppy purchaser at the time of the purchase laying down the fact that there are endorsements and what is required for them to be lifted then the KC will remove the endorsements.

This whole situation seems crazy to me, these endorsements are now common practice and it is very hard to find a pedigree puppy without them, yet there are more and more unregistered litters!  Protecting the breeds? I don't think so.

> However, if the hips are not all the dog, and it was decided to carefully chose a stud dog, yet the breeder still refuses to remove the restrictions, would the breeder be liable for faulty goods?

Unlikely because there are so many additional environmental factors that can affect hip scores & unfortunately, good scoring parents with a good history themselves, while it may reduce the risk, it doesn't eliminate it and puppy buyers should be made aware there are no guarantees.  I do think breeders also have a a duty of care to advice their puppy buyers on correct management for their new addition in terms of diet and exercise to minimise the risk of future problems, and that includes obtaining good quality insurance, because nothing in life is guaranteed (sadly :( )

I hear what Fossey is saying about restrictions and the growth in unregistered litters :(  - I am a big supporter of endorsements and will continue to use them, I don't see any harm providing the criteria for removal is clearly laid out and understood by the puppy buyer and then of course honoured.  I did place tighter restrictions on my dog pups than my bitches because I really do not want the males bred on from at this stage - nevertheless, if one of the owners did meet the criteria, then all power to them, and who would I be to stand in their way?

Sadly, I suspect that some breeders believe that, in particular, novice puppy buyers will go along with the requests of the puppy buyer in the comfortable belief that the 'newbie' knows no better - even if that involves money changing hands :(

I have never bought a pup with endorsements and cannot ever imagine doing so, but then it is not common in the working side of my breed, so my own opinion may be coloured by this, but I find this completely unethical, and would be tempted to name (not necessarily on this site), if only to warn others of this practice.

If a breeder does not want their puppies to be bred from for whatever reason (an I respect that some won't) then that should be made clear from the beginning - ie - endorsements will NOT be lifted under any circumstances, but to change the goalposts, and in particular ask for considerable sums of money for doing so is completely unethical and such a breeder IMO is as bad as a puppy farmer.

I don't know what the KC would do as there does appear to be some flexability in the rules if a contract is not drawn up correctly - so I suspect it will depend on a) what argument is made for their removal and b) who is making the decision at the kc ;-) .

I think you're right about novice puppy buyers being thought more gullible, but in your friends shoes, I would definately challenges this.

Sue51
I think that this practice of demanding money (or equivalent) is appalling and is surely the sign of someone who intends to screw the last drop of money out of every poor dog they produce.
I know what I'd do and it involves the law! I'm lucky in that my family are very involved in the legal profession but a solicitors letter won't cost too much and often has remarkable results.

I don't show or breed so am looking at this from an outside point of view.

I was wondering if perhaps the wording of the endorsements should be set by the KC and in a standard form that covers all the reasons why endorsements are put in place in to begin with and the conditions under which they may be lifted. The conditions could then state that there would be no charge (as in the price of a puppy etc) for the removal of endorsements other than any fee the KC might charge. If an owner of an endorsed dog, whether first, second or third owner, then wanted the endorsements lifted they would then apply to the  KC . The KC would then inform the breeder who could either confirm their agreement or state their reasons as to why the endorsements should stand.

If the endorsements, and the subsequent standardised conditions for removal, were a standard part of the purchase of any KC registered dog there could be no confusion/getouts if the dog was sold on to a third party. Any purchaser of a registered dog would have the details shown on the purchase agreement so know exactly where they stand and what criteria would need to be fulfilled, breeders would have the knowledge that they would be informed of any request to remove an endorsement and both purchaser and breeder would be dealing with a situation that was regulated to the same standards in every case and so peace of mind would be had by both parties.

I realise that different breeds have differing recommended health checks so these would be detailed on the relevant part of the form.

The KC should lift the endorsements if there is no mention of a 'fee' in the contract, t&c's signed by both parties at the time of purchase, if they made no mention of acceptable hip scores etc then again they should lift it.

The best way to go about this is check out the t&c's for mention of any 'fee' to lift endorsements if there is non then a solicitors letter to the kc with a copy of the contract will almost certainly see the endorsements lifted, once they have contacted  the breeder asking for a copy of their paperwork with you to cross  reference with 'owners' copy. 

A fellow breeder had endosements on her pups, which folk had lifted when they did exactly that a solicitors letter and her being unable to supply the kc with a 'clear' copy of the contract, she'd had a flood which had caused damaged to much of her paperwork ergo very difficult to read, they claimed they had no choice but to lift the endorsements as she had no clear proof of the content of said contract or t&c's. 

The KC are a law unto themselves until you get a solicitors letter showing them the error of their ways, had another breeder tell me about a transfer of ownership that was allowed to go thru after the other partie crossed out the breeders name as first owner and sent a letter saying they'd signed in the wrong place!  The KC made no effort to clarify details with the breeder just transfered the dog into the single ownership of this individual, the only reason the breeder found out was a litter being born without her knowledge but registered ergo showing up in the BRS some 2 yrs later!   Her solicitor has now written to the KC with a copy of their own wording on the registration doc's about tampering would prevent a registration going thru -------- am awaiting my next show to catch up with her to see what the outcome is on that one.

When it comes down to it the KC are all too keen on saying seek legal advice.

I think it may be time for not just breeders to protect themselves with contracts but also those buying puppies whom have requested would like endorsements lifted once all health screenings, hip scores and show potential results are done as per the breeders instructions.  I think it would be beneficial for both sides to have contracts signed, in the pups owners case stating that no monies or pups will be in exchange for the endorsements being lifted, therefore any disagreements can be filed in court immediately, or the breeder would know not to push their luck as they have no legalities to anything and these terrible breeders can no longer blackmail. :-(

The breeder in this case would have needed a written contract to state they wanted a pup or monies, but the KC are a law unto themselves, I would go and see a solicitor.

> I think that this practice of demanding money (or equivalent) is appalling and is surely the sign of someone who intends to screw the last drop of money out of every poor dog they produce.

:( I know.  She has now spoken to the KC, they have advised doing the health tests and then getting back in touch - he is booked in for the same time as one of my girls, so will keep this thread updated as and when there is any more news - thanks everyone who has replied :)

Good luck to your friend Sue, I cannot understand a breeder expoiting her own puppies.  Has she no conscience (sp).

Please as you say, keep the thread updated.  I feel really quite sad for you friend.

I wasn't aware it was commonplace in our breed either,but the more i hear the more it seems that this thing is going on.
I have had the same problems,and have had to hand over a puppy for the removal of endorsements,even though my contract stated
that if health testing was carried out and the results were satisfactory the endorsements would be lifted.
After many arguments with the breeder,i relented and handed over a puppy.The breeder also insisted on having pick of litter and had taken
the puppy that i would of kept for the show ring.

I also had another dog from the same breeder,and have ended up handing very large sums of money to have endorsements lifted.
The arguements still continued over the dog and i felt i was forced to put her in a pet home.

Both of these girls had been shown alot and done well.
I was new to our breed and although i have now aquired other dogs from different breeders i find it very hard to trust any breeder,and worry about all endorsements.
I also know of other people who have had the same trouble with my breeder.
Then kennel club were totally unintrested when i contacted them for help.

I think such practises are outrageous.

Perhaps naming and shaming would be the way to go if the Kennel Club will do nothing.  At least that way, others would be aware of the breeders to avoid.

But I guess naming and shaming would result in the breeders denying it and lawsuits would follow for slander.

Any honest breeder would stick to the contract you can't change the rules half way through the game. The KC are only after money and it is no surprize they are not interested.

We all know puppy farmers are ripping people off but if the true breeders are doing the same what chance does anyone have.

i relented and handed over a puppy.

if i had done this i would have endorsed the puppy!

i relented and handed over a puppy.

if i had done this i would have endorsed the puppy!

I would imagine that that was part of the deal that the puppy had to have no endorsements on it. If the poster then refused I expect the breeder would have refused for the endorsements to be lifted on the posters bitch and so then the poster would have ended up with an unregistered litter.

To be honest though to register the litter the endorsements would need to have been lifted so the person could have endorsed the pup paying the bitches breeder back in kind, as they would not have known it until after they had lifted the bitches endorsement.

But I guess naming and shaming would result in the breeders denying it and lawsuits would follow for slander

Yes, possibly - would depend if the new conditions were just verbal, or written - perhaps in an email?  If it were me, I might just take that risk ;-) (although I'm not suggesting anyone else should)

If a test case was taken to court (either by someone who could afford to, or a number of people who had been affected by these practices,then maybe it would set a precedent for the KC to follow.

Don't  get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with a breeder endorsing their pups and never wanting them bred from, provided that is made clear before the buyer commits to a puppy. But to sell a pup with one set of conditions, and then change those conditions to make more money is unethical and profiteering, and it would not be a bad thing to bring it into the open - I expect these breeders  get away with it simply because it is brushed under the carpet/buyers submit to their demands because they have already invested time, love and  money into the dog / wouldn't dare to say anything, particularly in the case of well-known reputable breeders (although in this case reputable would be a misnomer!)

To be honest though to register the litter the endorsements would need to have been lifted so the person could have endorsed the pup paying the bitches breeder back in kind, as they would not have known it until after they had lifted the bitches endorsement
Oh yep course they would have LOL

Yep but to be enforced the stud dog owner would of had to sign to acknowledge it.
Seems its a vicious circle.

I don't have a litter registration form to hand (I have one somewhere ;-) ) but surely the stud dog owner is only signing that a mating took place at a certain time. They wouldn't necessarily know that the bitches registraion is endorsed. Unless they saw the bitches actual registration certificate and noticed the endorsements.

> They wouldn't necessarily know that the bitches registraion is endorsed. Unless they saw the bitches actual registration certificate and noticed the endorsements.

Certainly as far as I am aware - I don't recall discussing endorsements of the pups with the stud dog owner, but all my pups were endorsed, and all the new owners had the situation explained fully to them before signing two copies of a contract (one for them, one for me) outling exactly what was required for the endorsements to be lifted.