How much 'power' do you think its right for breeders to have?

As a breeder, my goal is to screen my buyers well enough, and develop enough of a relationship with them, that I don't have to threaten them in a contract. I don't have clauses allowing me to take the dog back in this situation or that - as you say, there are too many grey areas in the language, which can lead to problems and likely won't hold up in court, anyway.

I don't demand the right to take my puppy back if it was found running at large - but I have good relationships with most of the shelters in my region, and if one of my dogs ended up there, I'd be there in a heartbeat. Of course I'd have a serious discussion with the owner, but threatening them in the contract isn't the kind of relationship I want to foster.

I have two basic requirements in my contracts: spay/neuter, and that the dog be returned to me if the owner can't keep it.

I have had people question the spay/neuter clause before; I explain to them that I am selling them a PET ONLY, and if they want a breeding dog, they will need to look elsewhere. Once we discuss it, they seem comfortable; if they aren't, or if they seem at all hesitant about fulfilling that portion of the contract, they don't get a puppy from me.

I agree that if you aren't comfortable with a breeder's contract, you need to dicuss it with them until you are, or find another breeder.

I don't think it's a bad idea to have that clause in a sales contract (about taking dog back if it's abused): however, not feeding a raw diet isn't abuse, and i think you ought to be free to feed your dog in whatever way you choose, as long as he or she gets proper nutrition.

I have seen a clause in a contract which states that, if the puppy gets sick, and he's not taking the vitamins they recommend, they won't be held responsible. I don't know about you, but i really doubt a dog's medical condition would depend upon vitamins, especially a chosen brand -- and how would the breeder actually KNOW if the dog was getting the vitamins once it was sold. I just thought that was odd, since a dog can get parvo and other illnesses if they don't have their immunizations - it has nothing to do with vitamins.

In any case, i have always asked my vets what dog foods they recommend, just to see what they'd say - i've moved a few times in eight years, and the standard answer is "Purina" - i've never fed my dog purina, and i don't understand why vets routinely recommend it.

If i were going to buy a dog, and had a certain breed in mind, i'd probably visit Internet Forums which dealt with the particular breed to see which breeders people are pleased with, etc. I have a friend who did this and she got a lot of good (and some bad) information about breeders she was looking at. Yes, people talk!

Good luck with your career as a vet! and take care

I bought my last puppy from a breeder with no written contract. The breeder was one of the top in nation for the breed, not just a member but hosting the breed's national association this year. They've been breeding for 25 years and are nationally recognized trainers as well. Their dogs are featured in other breeder's pedigrees and their own pedigrees feature some of the best in the world over the last 20 years. I mention all this not to brag about my dog which doesn't matter to you, but to describe the caliber of the breeder who in this case had no paper contract at all.

There is nothing wrong with a paper contract, but you have to consider where the breeder gets their contract from. Did they really write it themselves? Hire an attorney to do it? Or did they just scour the Internet for examples. pick the clauses they liked and put it all together in a word processor? Maybe they picked a few clauses that seemed like a good idea to them but which they haven't actually ever used, don't intend to use, and would have no power to effect even if they wanted to use them.

A paper contract is usually a lot more helpful to the buyer than the breeder because if you receive a puppy that is not what you agreed to there should be some clear course of mediation or resolution. For example, if you received a puppy that was already dying of parvo, sold a "purebred" german shepherd that arrives and turns out to be half border collie, or a pup that develops CHD by 6 months or some similiar misfortune. Obviously in the case that you are buying a puppy from a breeder of no reputation, the contract is more reassuring. Naturally, the breeder is going to add clauses to protect themselves from buyers, of whom far fewer have any reputation whatsoever.

So while paper contracts have meaningful purpose, I would suggest that you would have few problems with reputable breeders regardless of the contents of the contract and that your selection of a puppy has far more important criteria to consider.

Advice to a future vet: don't pimp yourself out to the dog food industry and don't become a pusher for the drug/vaccine lords. You'll make a difference if you have integrity and an ethical approach to medicine but you're entering a world run by corporate giants in pet food and pharmaceuticals where the solution to every problem is to use their products.

I think it is a breeder being responsible for what they are producing. Local shelters and rescues have this clause as well. I think someone already said this, but I would ask them what exactly they are looking for in this clause.

I don't think they are talking about the average home. I think they mean more that the dog was bought to be a family pet and then years later they find out it is tied to a post in the backyard for most of it's life.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to have the breeder write on the contract what things specifically they are speaking of. I would say, most likely they mean are the dogs basic needs being met. Does it have good vet care? Is it a beloved family pet? Besides, how are they really going to know? They don't send the pups out with nanny cams. :)

I've seen many clauses similar to this and usually it is actually the sign of a good breeder. Most good breeders will state in their contract that they will take the dog back at any time in the dogs life if the owners are no longer able to care for it.

You should know, that it isn't like they can decide you aren't feeding the right dog food and therefore you relinquish your rights to your dog because you signed a paper when you bought it. They could take you to court, but it would really be hard for them to win custody of the dog unless they could prove that you truly aren't caring for the dog. It doesn't give them permission to just come take your dog because they feel like it. Like I said before, it gives them a leg to stand on if one of their dogs is found tied up in a yard or with untreated medical conditions. They would have a claim to the dog before it went to the shelter.

I totally get what you are saying...but just ask them to clarify. If they truly get down to what you feed the dog etc., then pass and look at a different breeder.

Good luck in finding your perfect puppy.

@letterstoheather~ Vets generally recommend either purina or science diet and that is generally because they get kickbacks from the companies.

ADD: To the "found running at large" clause....I think that is a bit excessive. Like you said, it isn't something you plan for and I can see if it was a continuing problem. Dogs dig, fences break, latches don't always close properly. It's not something anyone plans on. I honestly have never seen that one, but I would either want it clarified in writing or I wouldn't sign the contract.

But, like Julie D. put it, until they relinquish ownership to you, these are their dogs and they basically can set the rules.

If you're that concerned about the clause, it's best to sit down with the breeder and have them tell you, explicitly and in writing, just what constitutes a dog who's "not well cared for." Ask them if this has to do with diet, vet care, yard size, house size, etc. or if it's only used as a last resort in cases of serious neglect. If the breeder is adamant about a specific diet that you know you don't want to feed or lists other conditions that you feel are unreasonable, move on until you can find a breeder whose methods you're more comfortable with. However, that they're willing to take the animal out of an abusive and/or neglectful environment shows that they care a great deal for their puppies. I'd rather buy a puppy from someone who was borderline fanatic about the puppy's home life than someone who didn't care what happened to him once he was sold.

The best rule of thumb, both from the breeder's perspective and the buyer's perspective, is never to enter into a contract you're not comfortable with. It is a breeder's responsibility to do everything within their power to ensure that their dogs end up in trustworthy, capable hands. That being said, some of the things breeders can do to achieve this is done during the screening process, before making the sale. However, they do have to protect themselves from unforeseen circumstances, so they try to cover all their bases.

Personally, as a breeder, I would include this clause in my contract. I would expect the buyer to trust me, as I would need to trust them, enough not to believe I would take their dog back for petty reasons. Anyone who would not be comfortable agreeing to that would have to buy their dog elsewhere.

This is where you need to TALK to the breeder about their ideals in regards to "proper care" and what constitutes "adequate care" and breach of that.

A lot of breeders have these clauses in their contracts because there ARE people out there who will buy a pup and leave it to fend for itself in a backyard or try to turn it into a "cool attack dog", or even turn it into a junkyard dog or something similar.

There are animal abusers and animals are neglected - fact of life. The fact that the breeders HAVE these clauses in a contract shows that they care about where their pup ends up. They aren't afraid to let people know that they will go in and remove a dog that is being abused/neglected and that they have the law on their side.

You may find that the breeders concept of "adequate care" fits yours - food, water, shelter, no chaining the dog for hours on end, etc. You may find that the only time they will actually REMOVE the dog from your care if if you're beating it, starving it, leaving it to fend for itself in hot/cold weather extremes, etc.

TALK to them.

I would rather buy from someone with these clauses in the contract than with nothing at all. At least then i know they CARE about where their pups end up and that points, as well, to their ideals as breeders. If they have these little clauses then they likely have spay/neuter, return to breed at any time, and maybe even genetic testing or good genetic guarantees.

Not a breeder so i can't comment on the other end.

Since it's a private contract, they could require that you feed the dog eclairs from a crystal glass if they wanted. I agree with you that some are excessive, but there are so many good breeders out there, if you don't like the terms, either negotiate them or go to a different breeder. Even if you like a certain line, there are plenty of people breeding from most lines if you look hard enough. In labrador, if you want a lean mac dog, you pretty much just can't throw a rock at any field trial event without hitting a stud or b*tch from him who's got a litter planned.

One weird clause I've seen is not with a breeder, but with a labrador rescue. It stipulates that the dog never be let off leash. WTF? How would it retrieve? How would it swim? Just an overall WTF?!

The bummer is, if you sign the contract, you're agreeing to be bound. Might be unfair, but if you sign a contract saying you agree to all of its terms and you intend to be bound.

People on here are probably going to call you all sorts of names, but I agree- you pay money for the dog- it's a property transaction. I take good care of my dogs, but don't want all sorts of strings attached to my property.

I think that is a great clause to have. That means the breeder is really interested in the home that the dog goes to and will continue to be interested in the puppy past the point of sale. The breeder should have full power and responsibility when it comes to the home their dogs go to.

When we got our first dog she was from a breeder but I was to young at the time to know what was in the contract (our other dog is a mutt we got from an elderly couple who couldn't care for her anymore). I can understand the right to take the dog, but I would assume they wouldn't do that unless it is necessary. I know most breeders find homes for their puppies before they even mate the dog so they can make sure they know who is getting the puppy and they check them out before hand. If you have an issue with one of the clauses I would think the best thing to do would be contact the breeder and ask about it. Like I said it may be in there but if you really think about it unless the dogs health is in danger they wouldn't want to take the dog back. Ask them what exactly it is they mean by adequate care and if needed have them visit your home so they can observe it for themselves.