can anyone answer this?
What is the difference adopting a pup and actually owning it outright?
Is this were breeder lend pups or dogs so other breeders can use them to have a litter for them, but at the end of the day the dogs owner has the last say.
I'm new at this, i've already gotr a pup of my own and interested in getting another soon. he breeder who i think i would like a pup from she does adoption so , i was just wondering

Ive never heard of a breeder adopting out dogs,Ive heard of breeding terms where someone buys a dog on condition they give the breeder back pups at a later date, But the way I see it if you buy a pup that then is your property.On the other hand if you adopt a pup from a rescue the Dog is always subject to the rescues rules and one is not to be breed from and usually you make a voluntary donation to the rescue (not buy it)and sign a form to adopt the dog and in many cases the dog must be returned to rescue if you no longer can keep the dog.
If entering a contract for breeding terms be very careful.

Like Mattie I have never heard of a breeder 'adopting' out pup's but would hazard a guess that what you are taking on is in fact some form of breeding terms? As Mattie said, you need to be very careful with this kind of arrangement. I would be very interested to know what 'deal' you have been offered :-) Is it joint ownership?

Leigh

I have heard the expression 'adopting' used when selling puppies, and I thought it was just a light hearted term used when the puppy goes to its new home. The term 'fostering' implies temporary care whereas adopting is for life.
Lorna

The only problem with that is that if the UK courts will not uphold a breeder's rights in a contractual sense (i.e., mandatory breeding, testing, showing, working, etc.), it is doubtful that a rescue/shelter's contract would be held in other than the same unfavorable light. So, I believe that 'adopt' and 'sell' are merely semantics if viewed within the context of contractual terms. In the dog world, however, as you pointed out, the term adopt normally is used in connection with rescue or shelter animals.

Again, someone will have to enlighten me as to how the Kennel Club views co-ownerships, because I never placed/sold a puppy/dog on a 'breeding' contract without maintaining co-ownership so that I could be ensured that the dog would not be bred without my express input (as contractually stated). The AKC is very good about upholding contracts.

The AKC also has a 'lease' registration in which a dog can be turned over for a specific amount of time (indicated on the form) for the purpose of showing, etc. This is especially useful to breeders who do not have the funds (since a dog being campaigned in the top 10 in the US normally requires an annual budget for shows, handling, advertising, etc. in the neighborhood of $25,000+) but can lease the dog to an individual who can show the dog under their name and pay those kinds of fees. It is also useful in the breeding realm, where I may wish to lease a bitch from another breeder to breed to one of my males in order that the puppies will carry my name as breeder and my kennel name. Normally, a fee (in money and/or number of puppies) is exchanged between the lessee and lessor.

I agree that one should be very careful in entering into any type of contract. Read the entire contract and negotiate any areas to which you have an adversion.

hi Sierra, when are rescue started we had the sdoption/release forms drawn up and checked by a Solicitor and they are a legal document,time and again we have had people signing over their dogs and after they are rehoused wanting them back but our forms have been our saving grace one lady accused us of stealing her dog luckily we had not only the signed release form but a letter she had written to me for the new owners,the Police just didnt want to know,adoption though is tricky people move etc...but we still try to make sure everything is ok and always have the dog back if there are problems.I once sold a car to a friend and she wasnt paying straight away I was very young at the time and made her sign an agreement accross a postage stamp LOL and guess what she didnt want to pay but she did in the end cos the Police said it was a legal document,were a strange lot dont you think?

Mattie, I agree with you full-heartedly which is why I am so confused about the various statements people have made on here about solicitors telling them that a contract for a puppy signed between two parties is not upholdable because it would interfere with their 'civil rights'. One of the issues being discussed was mandatory sterilization or mandatory non-breeding. I'm almost at the point where I'm considering auditing a contractual law class over here for solicitors so that I can understand why one contract (that from a breeder) would not be upheld yet one from a rescue/shelter would be. Verrrrrrrrrrry confusing, grasshopper (as one of my old professors would have said)!

Uh, Sierra? You're not a closet David Carradine fan are you?
HIIIIIII-YA! :)
Quinn

Can't be, that was Glasshopper as i remember it!

No, but I think the professor was!!!!

It's not a "civil rights" issue Sierra - it's to do with common law rights but as I have said before, most of the contractual terms you mention have not been tested in court so its just educated opinion that says that certain terms would not be upheld in a UK court of law. I would also suggest that there is a clear difference between "buying" a pedigree puppy for usually a large sum of money (& then have the breeder attempting legally to control various aspects of that dog's life once it leaves his/her ownership) & "adopting" a dog/puppy from a rescue organisation in exchange for a small donation. I'm given to understand that the price paid for the "goods" would almost certainly be a factor when considering whether a contract clause is deemed fair or unfair.

Good luck with your proposed contract law class - I would be v interested to hear the outcome :-)

Unless the law varies greatly here in the UK, the cost of the item is not relevant. The question would be concerning the validity of the terms of the contract which could be negotiated for £1 or £1000. The 'donation' is not a donation in that it is a set price for the dog and is not contingent upon the generousity of the purchaser. In both cases, the dog is being purchased and, if the rescue or shelter is legally able to contractual terms such as we have discussed in the past, then it would be highly prejudicial and discriminatory to disallow those same conditions by a breeder. But then that is just my educated opinion based on Canadian and US laws. I did have a case concerning a US contract on a dog that had been sold to a Canadian and then was repossessed. The contract was upheld by both countries.

Yes I know that price is not relevant under the general principles of contract law but it could be relevant under our various pieces of consumer legislation. I don't know whether you have consumer legislation like the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 in the US - this statute places a burden on a seller to prove that a contract term is "reasonable" if challenged by a buyer - there is a "test of reasonableness" which covers various things like bargaining postion of the parties & whether the buyer could have bought similar goods elsewhere without these contractual terms etc. Obviously this legislation could be applied to the sale of a puppy/dog same as any other "goods". It has been suggested to me by a practising contracts lawyer that price could be relevant when deciding whether a particular term is "reasonable". I have no idea whether this is a correct interpretation - no doubt, other practising lawyers would disagree (lawyers disagreeing - now there's a novelty :-) ) As I've said before, it's difficult to find any case law on this subject (in relation to dogs) as such cases will usually be heard before the Small Claims Court which are not reported (no precedents set) & v few decisions will be appealed to the higher courts.

Okay, it's making more sense now in that individual interpretation of the law varies greatly which is why case law becomes established as guidelines as to how the law actually can be interpreted. Reading the way he/she interpreted the law is not how I would interpret the same statute. **chuckling** yes, lawyers do not always agree. The terms of the contract may not be upholdable in the event that one is charging £1000 for a puppy with very stringent terms and the normal price for the same puppy is £400. However, I believe that prices being equal or less, the terms would be upholdable in a court of law. And, if not, that's why they make Courts of Appeals -- which would also establish case law. I would never pursue a contractual dispute in Small Claims Court since I believe that, in the case of established breeders, there is also monetary damage to reputation, etc.; hence, I would always file in the Circuit Court or equivalents.

Thanks for the discussion.

The only adoption's are usually from dog homesnot breeders. Never heard of this in over 20 years.

years ago a friend said i could "adopt" her poodle but on the condition she got to use it for stud when ever she wanted,i had to pay insurance for it along with any vets treatment he required while staying with me, as the dog was valued at around £900 .Nothing was signed she kept all his paper work,k.c etc.she told us he was house trained good natured, house trained NEVER and sadly he never got on with my own poodle so i took him back..

several websites in the usa have adopt a dog pages ,in those cases theyre retired show and breeding stock, it made me look twice the first time i saw it written down too,the ones for adoption!!!are speyed and neutered and looking for retirement homes,dont know if thats the type of thing your offer would be

woooooooow!!!!!!
I'm very weary of the phase "adoption", i just aware that this breeder does adopts dogs or pups. I was just wondering on how common this is.

I'm not intersting in breeding only showing if the dog turns out ok then great if not, he will still be dwarly loved,
It does make you wonder about the law isssue in all this. Thank you for you input
Lol

you really need to talk it all over with the breeder to see excactly whats involved, what will you be expected to do and what will your rights be with the dog, i would imagine there will be many genuine people out there happy to work something out if it gets a dog a good home with someone who'll take care of it as it lessens the amount a breeder has to keep on their premises, its usually a two way thing ,and it has to work for both of you, ive twice gone into arrangements with people and theyve worked out a treat, both party's have been very happy ,BUT!!!!! everything was talked over and agreed to first, then written down and signed by both partys,it keeps everybody right and there cant be any confusion,
you said this persons done this before ,why dont you ask someone whos had one from them how they felt about it once the deal was made, as ive also heard of many people coming away saying never again, if the breeder is genuine and has his dogs good at heart and its not just a way of fobbing poor stock onto someone else, then as long as its all up front and signed for i cant see you'd have a problem, it all relys on the integrity of the person you're dealing with, it shouldnt be too hard to check that one out.