Are they actually legally binding?
Or is more to do with stopping people registering litters from bitches/dogs that have endorsments placed on them?

A well-written contract that has been correctly signed is only useful if you take legal action. 

No I believe they are not legally binding but at least they will make the new owner think before buying a dog off you and hopefully they will follow on from what they have signed.

They are not legally binding unless they have been drawn up by a solicitor, apart from that they don't mean anything.
We all hope that people will abide by them but in the eyes of the law they don't have to unless like i say they are done by a solicitor.

Peanuts

Well you may be right but I am not sure what you are saying is, if it is correctly worded to mean what you think it does and correctly signed and dated then it will be valid in court. I have drawn up a contract and although I did ask a solicitor to read it for me he did not change it and it was accepted as a binding document. If you mean the endorsements alone without the contract then no they are not and the KC says they must be backed by a signed contract.

They are not legally binding unless they have been drawn up by a solicitor, apart from that they don't mean anything.


Hi Peanuts no disrespect but that statement is totally incorrect. A contract does NOT have to be drawn up by a solicitor to be legal.

You enter into contracts everyday in life even by buying something at a local shop.  Not sure where you thought that but it is not correct.

For a contract to be legally valid it has to be equally fair to BOTH parties , drawn up correctly either in written form or verbally though agreement of presumption. Of course verbal ones are harder to prove. 

Blue would i be right in thinking that most people have the impression that contracts aren't legally binding is because no one has actually yet pursued a claim for breach of contract through the Courts? 

Maybe if someone did then there would be case law to rely on and others would follow suit in bringing actions which would test the validity of the contracts.

I am guessing that most would be small claims matters and you'd have to meet the fees of the Court yourself (unless of course your exempt) and do all the leg work yourself, which probably puts people off.   

Kate

We took a puppy owner to court as they had not held up there end of the contract and we were told in court that breeders contract are not legally binding , nor do they serve a purpose in the legal system unless they are drawn up and witnessed by a solicitor, as anything can be put in a breeders contract that does not serve within the paramiters of the law.

example Taking puppy back to the breeder if they no longer want the puppy or there is a problem with a puppy, courts are not interested as the breeder has taken money for the puppy , so the new owner has every right to sell the dog on.

And before everyone jumps on me, this was my experiance in court not my words , their's!!

Peanuts

Peanuts you missed my point or maybe I never made it clear a contract does not have to be made by a solicitor. ( except is some cases)  My comments were based on your statement about a basic contract requiring a solicitor. That was incorrect.

I didn't comment on the puppy contract as I know full well " most" have no weight BUT I will not partake in ripping them to bits on the internet as I do think that do serve as a deterant to most puppy buyers so have some worth even as a " sneaky" tool.

It is nothing to do with the way the contract was drawn up that made your puppy contract worthless it was the content and the contract itself.  It would have had the same outcome had it been done with a solicitor.

You cannot generally ( again there are some exceptions) sell something outright and then have claim to it REGARDLESS who drew it up.  Once " real rights" transfer they are gone.

The mistake people make is they title the contract " Contract of sale"..   there are ways around it but not something I am going to really get into on here personally as it is a bit complicated.

example Taking puppy back to the breeder if they no longer want the puppy or there is a problem with a puppy, courts are not interested as the breeder has taken money for the puppy , so the new owner has every right to sell the dog on.

  Of course that would be the case, why would anyone jump on you... common sense tells you surely  you can't go to Clarks and buy and pair of shoes and they have them demand you return them when you are finished with them.

This is just as I thought, Blue.  It's the "fairness" of the contract it hinges on and no matter who writes a contract of sale that aspect can never really be regarded as fair.

Exactly.. once real rights pass that is it, youhave gave up they real rights. ( unless some fraudulent etc of course)

There are ways around it by not passing the real rights over but in general I think they should only be used in certain circumstances..

> There are ways around it by not passing the real rights over but in general I think they should only be used in certain circumstances..

Are you talking about breeding contracts, dressing it up as adoption, that sort of thing?

Peanuts you missed my point.

Blue i was not answering your post nor have i said anything about your post , i was just telling the story of what happened to me.

Peanuts

Yes or joint owner type things.  Of course it isn't really wise people using them unless they really understand contract law BUT they do serve a purpose today if you know how to use them as there are so many people up to no good.  I could see use in them for the very successful kennels were I think they seem to have more trouble with the dodgy buyer.

The one thing I like about the puppy contract in general is that it does act as a deterant,  a huge % in our country really do not understand the law, our legal system, what real rights are or what they mean or how and what makes a contract. 

(We still have a huge % of the popuation demanding shops sell things at the marked price claiming they are breaking the law, whole different debate though)

I studied law so understand the problems with the puppy contract BUT it would never stop me using them.   The other type contracts I mention for me would come in play when perhaps a bitch or dog is going for possibly breeding.  It would or could be misinterpretated by a lot as being controlling though.

As a general rule me personally only sell endorsed puppies to pet homes. All but two exceptions and those were real freinds in the breed. 

The problem we have Kate isn't the challenge it is that in this country a dog is legally seen as just a "thing" that can be bought and sold it has not other rights just like a pair of shoes.  That is why I always do the shoe comment.

The problem we have is once we give up all " real rights"  we cannot ask for the rights back.  You haev sold the rights to that.

I always try my best not to get too into it on here but wanted to correct the statement about the solicitor as that drives me crackers.  When you buy a pint of milk at the store you have just entered and completed a contract.  No solicitor

> Yes or joint owner type things.  Of course it isn't really wise people using them unless they really understand contract law BUT they do serve a purpose today if you know how to use them as there are so many people up to no good. 

I think it has been said for many a year that these sorts of agreements are best not entered into unless you really feel you know and trust the other party. 

The problem we have Kate isn't the challenge it is that in this country a dog is legally seen as just a "thing" that can be bought and sold it has not other rights just like a pair of shoes.  That is why I always do the shoe comment.

A woman just won £2,000.00 in court after the heel off her shoe broke the first time she wore it

A woman just won £2,000.00 in court after the heel off her shoe broke the first time she wore it 


The reason she won the £2000 is because the shoes were sold and were not fit for the purpose bought, resulting in a bad injury.. using a dog senario if you bought a dog for £1000 and it took seriously ill you would have a claim on the breeder ( of course depending on what it was)

It is a good story but not unfortunately anything to do with what we are disussing here. Fit for Purpose and real rights are two different things , sad at times though.   

Sorry peanuts of that is the case just your posts keep appearing in my replies

No Probs

Peanuts

So basically are contracts there to serve as a deterrent to buyers who may not be as clued up as they seem?

by that I mean a buyer who's intention is to get a bitch with the hope of breeding from her (Obviously they don't tell the breeders this) but then they realise you have a contract set in place so they go elsewhere
Say to a breeder who doesn't use contracts?