# Whether to sue a breeder?



## AK_Whiskey (Apr 6, 2015)

I have a 3-month old golden. He's terrific and I love him. But there are some things regarding the breeder I bought him from that I am unhappy with.

First of all, I live in Alaska and I purchased the pup from a breeder in Washington. I put down a deposit on the dog well before he was born. After the litter came, I selected the pup I wanted via photos, and then paid the remainder of the purchase price. After I did that, the breeder sent me a contract along with a bunch of terms that I don't necessarily agree with. I signed the contract because at that point I had already paid the full amount for the dog and wanted the dog, and didn't want to jerk around with the breeder over some of the terms I didn't agree with. As an attorney, I don't believe the contract is enforceable specifically because I didn't hear anything about a contract until after I'd paid the full amount. My understanding the entire time was that I was getting a golden retriever with papers in exchange for the agreed upon amount, without any additional terms.

Be that as it may, I'm considering suing the breeder for a judgment finding that the contract is unenforceable for the following reasons:

First, the contract states that I have to neuter my dog between 12 and 14 months of age, or something like that. But what if I don't want to neuter my dog? I'm leaning against it. I don't think the breeder would ever find out, and I'm not necessarily concerned about breeding the dog myself, but in the event that I did want to do that the breeder seems to have foreclosed that option. This leads to the second reason I'm thinking about suing.

Second, when I went to register my dog with AKC, I learned that the breeder only allowed a "limited registration." This means that in the event that my dog does have a litter, none of the pups will be AKC recognized. Again, this was never discussed in any conversation I had leading up to the time that I paid the full amount for the dog, and no mention of this "limited registration" was made in the "contract" that I didn't see until after I paid the money.

These are two things that have upset me about the breeder, but there's more.

Third, the pup arrived at my house with coccidia. It's a treatable disease, and not very serious, but still, it's not what you expect when you pay good money for a dog. It could only have come that way from the breeder because I took the dog to the vet the first day I had it. At that point the vet detected the coccidia, which takes about two weeks to gestate and show signs. So the dog couldn't have acquired the disease in Alaska or in transit here.

Fourth, last week the dog was diagnosed with giardia and roundworm. Again, the vet believes the dog must have come that way from the breeder because we live in Alaska and we haven't really experienced break up in the first month that I owned the pup. Giardia is also a treatable disease and not permanent, but it's more serious than coccidia. 

The dog also has a weird kind of hiccup. I don't know whether this might manifest into something more serious at a later stage or not. It doesn't appear to be kennel cough, but neither I nor the vet are exactly sure what it is.

So these things have seriously made me question the breeder's integrity. I don't think the breeder is a bad person. Mainly I just think she is an unsophisticated and unsavvy business person. She has been mentioned negatively on this website in other posts. Unfortunately, I didn't know about this website and I was a rather unsophisticated potential puppy owner when I met this breeder. Only in the process of preparing for the puppy's arrival and for training him have I become somewhat knowledgeable in the world of dog care and breeding.

I love my puppy, and he's a great, beautiful dog. He's already become a dear part of my family and I wouldn't trade him for the world. I don't seek to get any money out of a lawsuit with the breeder. But as I said above, I do seek a court order stating the contract is unenforceable. I'm pretty sure I would win that case. 

My question is whether I should actually do it. What thoughts do people have? I appreciate any and all feedback.

Thank you.


----------



## Cpc1972 (Feb 23, 2015)

No I would not sue and chalk it up to inexperience. Now you have more info for any future puppy you may get.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

I voted "No." Not worth the time and expense. Just enjoy your pup.


----------



## Anon-2130948gsoni (Apr 12, 2014)

A limited registration is designed to prevent amateurs from breeding dogs without the due diligence and health tests necessary to be responsible for bringing puppies into this world that are of a breed with serious, life-threatening health problems. All of the problems you listed...coccidia, giardia, etc. are no fun but they aren't life threatening. They're not going to cost thousands in orthopedic surgery or end the dog's life prematurely, the way hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, cardiac defects, etc., all if which can be substantially reduced by experienced breeders, can. Neuter your dog.

You said yourself you were an uneducated buyer. Suing this breeder because you didn't do your homework is quite frankly what gives lawyers a bad name and three out of four members of my immediate family are attorneys.


----------



## Coopsmom (Jan 13, 2015)

Spay/neuter contracts are fairly typical as is the limited registration. Generally speaking, both of those things are done to ensure that dogs sold to "pet homes" are not bred - search "back yard breeders" for lots of information on this.
You probably know better than most as to whether suing makes sense. Have you discussed your concerns with the breeder?
I hope you'll use the information on this forum to become more educated about the breed, breeding standards, health issues,etc. Best of luck with your new puppy!


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Two of my pups have come home with Giardia over the years, and it is kind of normal to sell pet pups on limited registration- even considered more ethical by some breeders. The age of neuter sounds responsible. Of course it is upsetting to have giardia and other things in the pup- I have been n your shoes twice with TippyKayak right there too with the littermate. However, suing the breeder is going way too far. If you got a nice pet puppy, you will get the giardia etc under control and all will be well likely.


----------



## TexasGoldRush (Dec 12, 2014)

I pretty much agree with Cpc1972 . Does the breeders web site mention the price for pups. Most that do usually let you know somewhere that breeding rights will cost more. Also did you ever tell her you wanted to breed? Breeders have lots of reasons why you shouldnt breed but they should. Some reasons are valid, some are bull, but I would just enjoy the dog.


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

You signed a contract- if you weren't comfortable with the terms and didn't bring them up with the breeder at that time, then you have no one to blame but yourself. Suing a breeder over this goes WAY too far... 
Parasites are not uncommon, and if the dog is healthy otherwise, I would not be concerned about it.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

What law school did you graduate from? If you thought you had a good case you'd go ahead and sue and not post this type of question on this forum.

I think you need to find something else than a lawsuit to occupy your time. JMO.


----------



## Test-ok (Jan 15, 2015)

You're a lawyer, you signed a contract and you come to a forum asking should you sue...really??
no reason to vote.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

When all is said and done, you signed the contract. Why did you pay full price before you saw the contract? Usually a deposit will hold a puppy until paperwork can be reviewed and agreed upon.

It would be unethical for you to now want to sue or try to keep your dog intact without her knowing.

I voted No, and personally feel it is rather unethical of you to be even considering suing (especially as a lawyer - you are in effect stating your oponion that contracts are meaningless) - but if you do decide to sue, be advised the breeder may very well demand her puppy back and fully refund your purchase money so she can be done with you.


----------



## Rumple’s Mom (Apr 1, 2015)

As far as I'm concerned you only have yourself to blame for the contract issues. You signed it, so that must mean you read it, yet admit that at the time you didn't agree with some of it so...???  Now you want to turn around and sue her? Really? The non-breeding part is very standard in any contract from any breeder, not just for this breed. There's a ton of reasons for them to not want people to buy their dogs and breed them. 

Most of us expect to pay a lot of money for a purebred, that's part of what goes into it. Sure, it's unfortunate that yours came with some illnesses, and that for sure is upsetting. But to sue her? C'mon. It's no wonder that the rest of the world jokes about how sue-happy Americans are, when you hear stories like this. And this is coming from a fellow American by the way.


----------



## AK_Whiskey (Apr 6, 2015)

I think I'd like to address the people calling me out on the fact that I'm an attorney and asked whether I should sue. I'd appreciate it if people avoid personal insults and stick to the question I asked. I haven't started this thread to start fights with anybody. I just want to take a poll.

Based on contract law, I believe I have a case. When the breeder accepted full payment of the dog *BEFORE* articulating any terms to a contract, she put me under duress. Whether she knew it or not, her behavior was coercive. This is because I had been expecting the puppy already for several months with not idea of any contract terms. Then, after I paid the money and only wanted the puppy, I'm all of sudden confronted with several "terms" that I don't agree with. Duress and coercion are defenses to an enforceable contract, and that is why I believe I would be successful in a lawsuit against the breeder.

There are several reasons why it might be beneficial to sue the breeder. The most important is that of deterrence. Don't innocent, unsophisticated puppy buyers like myself deserve some protection? Why should someone be placed in the position of having to choose between accepting contract terms they don't agree with and getting the puppy they've been anticipating for months? I believe this is downright unfair to unsophisticated puppy buyers. By suing this breeder and winning, I would be helping to deter similar behavior in future breeders. 

And to answer the other questions, No, the breeder made no mention of a limited registration anywhere at anytime. The first time I heard of it was when I went to register my pup.

But I appreciate the expressed sentiment that maybe suing the breeder would be too much. That is exactly why I posted this thread. As an attorney, of course I am more inclined to be litigious. Whether I should sue under the circumstances I've described is precisely the question I'm asking of you. Please don't attack me personally by questioning my judgment as an attorney or my law school pedigree. I welcome your comments, not your insults. Thank you.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

There is nothing unusual about that contract or the limited registration. Most ethical, if not all ethical breeders have such terms and contracts. 

You lost your chance the second you signed that contract.

All puppies are born with worms, your puppy was most likely wormed at the breeders, it is very common for them to need to be wormed again when they get to their new home. Often times the cultures give false negatives, so they do not show up until a later date.

Coccidia I believe can be brought on from the stress of coming to a new home. Your puppy had to travel a long way to get to Alaska from Washington, and went through quite a lot of stress. The breeder that I bought Brady from actually talked her vet into giving the new puppy owners the medication for coccidia as a preventative measure. 

Puppies and babies do get get hiccups. It will be something that the puppy will outgrow.

I see no reason for you to sue because you were ignorant to the whole puppy buying process. It is not the breeder's fault.


----------



## Anon-2130948gsoni (Apr 12, 2014)

As an attorney, would you ever advise a client to pay in full before understanding the terms of the implied contract?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Here's your problem, she accepted payment but then you signed the contract. So even if you theoretically had an agreement before signing the contract, the signing of the agreement would have modified or amended any agreement you did have. This is problematic for you for a couple of reasons, but most notably because you do have a legal education, you would know that agreements/contracts can be modified by mutual agreement of the parties. You signed an agreement which modified your agreement. To then say it was under duress isn't reasonable, in my opinion. The breeder wasn't threatening you. Worst case you wouldn't be purchasing a puppy, that would not rise to the level of duress in my opinion. 

I would not even remotely think of suing the breeder under these circumstances.

(This response does not constitute legal advice.)


----------



## Rumple’s Mom (Apr 1, 2015)

Did you read the contract in full before signing it? Due to the distance, I'm assuming that it was emailed to you for you to sign and return. So why would you sign a contract you didn't agree with? At the very least you could have discussed certain things with the breeder. 

Like everyone is saying, all the points in her contract are very standard among breeders. I don't see how she coerced you into signing a contract.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Did she require you pay in full before she would provide you the contract?


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

You mentioned you appreciated any and all feedback in your original post so I gave it in my first response to you. 

Have you actually discussed these things with your breeder first? Have you thought about mediation? What does your contract state regarding disputes? The contract you signed is enforceable and you know that already.

I think you will have a hard time convincing a judge, or a jury, that this suit has merit. In fact I can forsee it being thrown out and you being saddled with the breeder's legal fees and court costs. Just look at your poll results so far. I think you might get further with a heart to heart with the breeder, without litigation threats or intimidation.


----------



## AK_Whiskey (Apr 6, 2015)

There was no mention of a contract at all until after I had paid the money in full. That's what I find very upsetting. Then there's the fact that no mention of a limited registration was made until I went to register the puppy. I suppose I should clarify that I'm not asking for anyone's legal advice here. 

I believe I have a strong case if I chose to pursue it. I believe it is coercive to string someone along from out of state on the idea of getting a puppy, going back and forth with pics and doing the selection process, then making the demand to be paid in full, and then to say that she won't send the puppy until I sign the contract that she didn't even allude to until after the money had been paid in full. That is my legal opinion. I believe any discussion of an "implied contract" is mistaken. The contract between us was an oral contract. It amounted to money in exchange for dog. But after she accepted the money, she added new terms. Whether you believe that is coercive is your own business. 

Many of you have given me the information I have asked for. I understand that many people believe the idea of suing the breeder is over litigious. I appreciate those opinions. I also appreciate the information that many of the problems the dog has are very common. That is also helpful. Regarding the idea that simply the stress of travel could induce coccidia, I am reluctant to accept that. There is a gestation period for the signs to develop, usually at least a week. The pup had those signs immediately upon arrival in Alaska, so I can't imagine the flight alone induced them. 

But anyways, I appreciate all the feedback. Again, I'm not trying to start fights with anybody, so please don't attack me personally. Thank you.


----------



## AK_Whiskey (Apr 6, 2015)

I have made no discussion of these things with the breeder. I wanted to take a poll and see what everyone thought before taking any real action. Yes, it would be my intention to bring these problems to the breeder before starting a lawsuit.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Did she have a website? Were the terms on the website? Many breeders have the contract or the terms right on the website. I know there was a very good breeder that I wanted a puppy from, she invited me to her house for a visit, before I called for the visit, I saw her terms on the website, and one of them was the puppies were to come to their new homes already neutered - something I knew I did not want, so I looked elsewhere.


----------



## Chritty (Aug 17, 2014)

cubbysan said:


> all puppies are born with worms, your puppy was most likely wormed at the breeders, it is very common for them to need to be wormed again when they get to their new home. Often times the cultures give false negatives, so they do not show up until a later date.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



^^^^this^^^^


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

You could have asked for your money back when she presented the contract to you. you could have negotiated the terms at that point. You chose not to do so. I think you should get on with your life and enjoy your dog. Chalk it up to a mistake and move on with your life.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I do agree that the breeder should have made sure all the terms were clear before taking payment. But that should have been addressed before signing the contract, not now.


----------



## AK_Whiskey (Apr 6, 2015)

There are several reasons a buyer might not want to bicker with a breeder after he's already given them his money - namely because at that point you risk losing the money and the puppy. Think about it, if I argued against some of the terms I didn't like, the breeder could have told me to screw off, kept the money, and not delivered the pup. Then I'd have to be suing over the money and wouldn't have got the pup. Further, I'd have had no capital to buy another pup while I was going through litigation with the breeder. I didn't want to risk any of that.


----------



## Aiden's Mom (Aug 27, 2014)

That is a very normal contract. Cocc/Giardia is very common for new puppies, per my vet -- my Aiden also had it as a puppy. 

Why did you sign the contract? And then want to sue her? I'm so confused, but I guess you can sue for anything nowadays. Just talk with her.


----------



## AK_Whiskey (Apr 6, 2015)

No, the breeder has no website that details any of the terms of her contract. No mention of any contract or any term other than money for dog was mentioned until I had paid the purchase price in full.


----------



## goldenca (Jan 31, 2011)

Is this your very first pet?


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

Although I find it odd a breeder would require full payment well before picking up a puppy, I still don't understand why you wouldn't ask these questions if they were so important to you? Why not ask about what the breeders contract usually is? Inquire about these things before?


----------



## AK_Whiskey (Apr 6, 2015)

I'm not saying I necessarily want to sue. I'm just polling to see what other people would do.


----------



## Coopsmom (Jan 13, 2015)

AK_Whiskey said:


> There was no mention of a contract at all until after I had paid the money in full. That's what I find very upsetting. Then there's the fact that no mention of a limited registration was made until I went to register the puppy. I suppose I should clarify that I'm not asking for anyone's legal advice here.
> 
> I believe I have a strong case if I chose to pursue it. I believe it is coercive to string someone along from out of state on the idea of getting a puppy, going back and forth with pics and doing the selection process, then making the demand to be paid in full, and then to say that she won't send the puppy until I sign the contract that she didn't even allude to until after the money had been paid in full. That is my legal opinion. I believe any discussion of an "implied contract" is mistaken. The contract between us was an oral contract. It amounted to money in exchange for dog. But after she accepted the money, she added new terms. Whether you believe that is coercive is your own business.
> 
> ...


Are you saying that you had agreed upon terms regarding FULL registration? - OR - Was registration ever discussed? I do think suing over this is way over the top and i'm not sure what you would gain from it. Are you trying to teach the breeder a "lesson", collect something back from her? I imagine that there are some different laws between Alaska and Washington but that would be yours to figure out if you decide to pursue this.
I am curious as to whether you have read other breeder's contracts? many reputable breeders post these on their websites. (i am not offering anything in the way of legal advice - i am not qualified to do so - my questions are questions of curiosity only!)
last but not least, the stress of travel and/or leaving a litter can/often does produce GI upset for puppies.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

AK_Whiskey said:


> Based on contract law, I believe I have a case. When the breeder accepted full payment of the dog *BEFORE* articulating any terms to a contract, she put me under duress. Whether she knew it or not, her behavior was coercive. This is because I had been expecting the puppy already for several months with not idea of any contract terms. Then, after I paid the money and only wanted the puppy, I'm all of sudden confronted with several "terms" that I don't agree with. Duress and coercion are defenses to an enforceable contract, and that is why I believe I would be successful in a lawsuit against the breeder.
> 
> There are several reasons why it might be beneficial to sue the breeder. The most important is that of deterrence. Don't innocent, unsophisticated puppy buyers like myself deserve some protection? Why should someone be placed in the position of having to choose between accepting contract terms they don't agree with and getting the puppy they've been anticipating for months? I believe this is downright unfair to unsophisticated puppy buyers. By suing this breeder and winning, I would be helping to deter similar behavior in future breeders.
> 
> ...


I'm an attorney, too. And I find it pretty hard _not_ to question your judgment as an attorney. I am nonplussed that you even would post this thread, unless it was as a joke.

Clearly, you do _not_ have a case. You are not an unsophisticated buyer, you are an attorney. When you found out about the contract, you signed it. You did not protest, you did not ask for your money back, you did not insist that you already have an enforceable agreement. Instead, you signed it. Whether that's the final expression of the agreement or a modification of a prior agreement, it comes down to the same thing: you knowingly entered into a contract as the far more sophisticated party. And then you took delivery of the puppy, and have apparently not refused delivery, not notified the seller of nonconforming goods, nor returned the puppy. Instead, you want to repudiate the contract simply because you don't like it, keep the puppy, and become a backyard breeder to boot.

What kind of lawyer pays full consideration believing in an oral contract, then gets a bad contract in writing, and signs it without protest, then wants to sue to repudiate the contract? What judge would you not be embarrassed to appear in front of and admit to this folly? Would you admit that you are such an incompetent attorney that you didn't know what you were doing when you signed, or would you admit that you signed the contract intending all along to try to invalidate it through the courts (which would equate either to fraud on your part, or to no meeting of the minds and require you to return the puppy)? I see no other options for you. You don't have a good faith argument with regard to duress and coercion. You weren't going to suffer irreparable harm if you didn't take that puppy. You could have said, "I don't agree to that; please refund my money," or you could have attempted to negotiate terms that were more pleasing to you, but you didn't. You _signed the contract_ before taking delivery of the puppy.

Newsflash from Week 1 of your contracts class: the law does not protect you from entering into a bad bargain. And absolutely nothing in your tale of woe indicates anything that even remotely states an affirmative defense of duress or coercion. You'd be laughed out of court, and in my state you'd wind up with a judgment of costs against you (and attorneys fees, if the contract contains such a provision).

Sorry, I don't have the tact that goldenjackpuppy does. I do not suffer fools well. Any decent opposing counsel on such a case would beat you to legal death, set your corpse on fire and dance on the ashes. This is the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit and the very notion of it offends me as an officer of the court. People go to court with real problems and real legal issues, and here come people like you, clogging the system with a spurious lawsuit, because you have buyer's remorse over the terms of a puppy contract that you signed??? Good grief. And are you willing to travel to Washington for this misadventure? Or would you expect to haul the breeder into court in Alaska, claiming that's where the contract was entered into? Or will you burden the federal court with this on the excuse of diversity jurisdiction?

So, you probably guessed by now that my vote is "no," and I'd ask that you live up to your agreements and stop giving lawyers a bad name. Sorry I couldn't obey your directive with regard to opinions about this. I wish you were one of my associates so I could fire you. You've damaged lawyers simply by posting this thread, and I feel a need to remind people here that most lawyers aren't like that.

This does not constitute legal advice, either. Good grief.


----------



## AK_Whiskey (Apr 6, 2015)

Yes, this is the first pet I've ever bought on my own. I had a dog as a kid but my father bought it and basically raised it. I had a stray cat that I took in years ago. But this is the first and only dog that I've bought and owned as an adult.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

AK_Whiskey said:


> There are several reasons a buyer might not want to bicker with a breeder after he's already given them his money - namely because at that point you risk losing the money and the puppy. Think about it, if I argued against some of the terms I didn't like, *the breeder could have told me to screw off, kept the money, and not delivered the pup.* Then I'd have to be suing over the money and wouldn't have got the pup. Further, I'd have had no capital to buy another pup while I was going through litigation with the breeder. I didn't want to risk any of that.


But she didn't, because you chose to sign the contract rather than attempt to negotiate the terms or ask for a refund.


----------



## Cpc1972 (Feb 23, 2015)

Just chalk it up to your inexperience and enjoy your pup. I think it's ridiculous to even think about Suing.


----------



## Aiden's Mom (Aug 27, 2014)

DanaRuns said:


> You've damaged lawyers simply by posting this thread, and I feel a need to remind people here that most lawyers aren't like that.


Thank you -- Reading this topic really got me a bit worried of what is leaving Law School today.


----------



## SheetsSM (Jan 17, 2008)

It was stated earlier that this breeder has been discussed previously on the forum. Do these previous threads mention difficulty in obtaining AKC registration (as in several never were able to register their pups) and pups going home w/ a baggy of meds for coccidia?


----------



## Test-ok (Jan 15, 2015)

AK_Whiskey said:


> I'm not saying I necessarily want to sue. I'm just polling to see what other people would do.


Well I think you got your answer.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

I have a few questions for you, Why do you want to sue her? What do you hope to gain? Do you want your money back? Do you want to return the dog? Do you want her to pay for your vet for the treatment of worms, coccidian and giardia? Did the contract state the dog would not have these diseases? Do you want full registration? Honestly, you are all over the board with the problems on this one but you never state what you want other than to sue her. 

You had a number of opportunities to back out of the purchase if you were unhappy with it. Yes, people do it and you could have too. If the contract felt wrong all you had to do was ask for your money back. Or you could have asked for an amended contract for your specific requirements. Did you? It sounds like you had lots of contact with the breeder but does she know you are unhappy? Did you give her an opportunity to accommodate you? How could she know you are unhappy if you did not tell her? Court is a LAST resort after you have exhausted all other options. 

I think your legal bone is acting up and you see a lawsuit that you might be able to win without a clear purpose of what is to be won by such a suit. One lawsuit will NOT change how the average, small time breeder, will interact with their clients. They will never know of your win in court. While there are a number of states that have enacted laws regarding the care and licensing of kennels that sell dogs, there are almost none that have any statutes that address, in detail, the sales process itself. 

If you wish to change the way dogs are purchased and sold then you should appeal to your congressperson about sponsoring a law requiring strict enforcement of a specific manner in which dogs can be purchased and sold. Then when your state does not have any purebred dogs for sale, you can search for your next dog other states where the laws allow them to operate. 

PS - Please don't look in Wisconsin.


----------



## AK_Whiskey (Apr 6, 2015)

Yes I think I got more than I bargained for


----------



## SadiesWorld (Nov 13, 2012)

Love your puppy and nurse him back to good health.  Personally, I'd say no to suing.


----------



## DanaRuns (Sep 29, 2012)

Leslie B said:


> I have a few questions for you, Why do you want to sue her? What do you hope to gain? Do you want your money back? Do you want to return the dog? Do you want her to pay for your vet for the treatment of worms, coccidian and giardia? Did the contract state the dog would not have these diseases? Do you want full registration? Honestly, you are all over the board with the problems on this one but you never state what you want other than to sue her.


I think what he wants to do is to invalidate the contract he signed, which would enable him to keep the puppy, get a full registration and breed the dog, without abiding by any of the terms of the agreement. He's not all over the board, he's trying to scheme a way to be able to ignore his agreement.


----------



## dezymond (May 3, 2012)

There are several threads among this board and a ton of information to be found through just Google. You did not do your research before committing to the process of buying a puppy from a reputable breeder and that is your own fault. What that breeder did was common practice and had you done more research you would've known well before getting involved with the breeder. 

Stop thinking of your puppy purchase from an attorney's perspective and enjoy your puppy from an owner's perspective. The more you dwell on this I have a feeling you'll end up having unwarranted animosity towards your puppy and its quality of life could suffer. Drop this "case" now, live happily with your new puppy, and just be glad to have the joy of a dog in your life. If you can't move on, give that puppy a chance at a happy life and find another home for it. Then you can find another breeder, maybe a backyard breeder, and live happily with your new "contract-less" puppy.


----------



## Rumple’s Mom (Apr 1, 2015)

I'm beginning to think that this thread was started just to stir things up here. DanaRuns pretty much summed it up perfectly.


----------



## goldenca (Jan 31, 2011)

Perhaps this has nothing to do about lawsuits and such.....
maybe, just maybe, because this is his very first pet that he is raising that
.......this puppy is at 3 months old ---- a land shark.....


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

AK_Whiskey,

Were you intending to breed the dog?

I'm not being judgmental. I'm just trying to decipher your motive for considering a lawsuit.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Aiden's Mom said:


> Thank you -- Reading this topic really got me a bit worried of what is leaving Law School today.


Yeah, I had the same thought!


----------



## Anon-2130948gsoni (Apr 12, 2014)

I read this all again to make sure...you have a nice puppy whom you love who has no untreatable health problems?

Honey, what exactly is your damage?? Hang out here for a while if you want to see what real pain with a puppy can look like.


----------



## *t* (Oct 22, 2014)

AK_Whiskey said:


> Yes I think I got more than I bargained for


Then you didn't think to begin with. You are talking about a living, breathing animal that you should care for as if it were your own child because it is dependent on you. Are you just going to give up on this innocent soul because it isn't doing what you expected or what you "bargained" for? 

Take care of you pup, love your pup-- and know that you will not know what you "bargained" for until the end of this journey. And even then-- there is no price for the companionship you will receive if you show this pup the love it deserves. 

The only place I'd sue at this point is the college that gave you a law degree. 

And, no, this isn't legal flippin' advice.


----------



## ArchersMom (May 22, 2013)

I'd be happy that your puppy is relatively healthy. Some people aren't so lucky with purchasing a puppy. In fact I beleive there's a thread on the forum right now about a pup who's at the emergency vet because they were sold underage, with an infection and a massive infestation of worms. As has been said, limited registration is normal. Whether you like it or not. Ignorance to that fact is not the breeders fault. Actually, ignorance of anything regarding the purchase of this puppy is the buyers fault. You have the contract.


----------



## Cpc1972 (Feb 23, 2015)

If you dont want to neuter your dog then dont. Its just going to void your contract and any health guarantees. You dont like the contract anyway. Just know you wont be able to stud your dog and have registered puppies.


----------



## AK_Whiskey (Apr 6, 2015)

No. I don't want any money from the breeder for anything - treating the diseases or any other damages. And no, I don't want to breed the puppy. The main thing I thought about doing was not neutering him because, to be quite honest, I don't feel comfortable doing it. 

I'm sure there are a ton of threads regarding the pros and cons of neutering/spaying, ethical and practical and so on, etc. But I wasn't trying to get involved in that discussion. If I were ever going to "breed" my dog, the only thing I had thought about was waiting until he was getting on in years and letting him get laid before he dies. If that ever actually developed, at that point I would like to have full AKC registration for his pups, so they could be recognized as goldens. That's really the extent of what I don't like about the contract and why I might want to have it found unenforceable.

I think goldenca might have struck upon something. This is my first pup. I've been doing everything I've read to raise him properly along a positive approach. He's exhibited a few health concerns that have made me doubt the integrity of the breeder, as I stated in my initial post. So maybe I'm being overprotective.

DanaRuns, you're a moron. You'd fire an associate you didn't agree with? You're an arrogant *******, and your legal opinion is ****.


----------



## wjane (Oct 12, 2013)

Thank you, DanaRuns.


----------



## Kirsten (Jun 18, 2013)

Well said Noreaster. You have a dog you love, move on and learn from your experience. My puppy was born with a congenital disorder that has cost me thousands of dollars, not once did it cross my mind to sue.( I did think to contact the breeder in case it could be passed to future litters , but it turns out that is not the case.)

Enjoy your dog! There are way more important things in life than to dwell on the past.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Well....if I lived in CA, and needed legal counsel to defend against a frivolous lawsuit, I think I'd hire DanaRuns, just based on that one post.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

AK_Whiskey said:


> If I were ever going to "breed" my dog, the only thing I had thought about was waiting until he was getting on in years and letting him get laid before he dies. If that ever actually developed, at that point I would like to have full AKC registration for his pups, so they could be recognized as goldens. That's really the extent of what I don't like about the contract and why I might want to have it found unenforceable.



April Fools was last week, wasn't it? This is the most ridiculous reason I have ever heard to breed a dog! This, right here, is why limited registration exists. 

I don't think there is a court in the world that could force a breeder to give you full registration... unless you could prove you had signed a contract specifically granting breeding rights to you. You don't have that. Case closed. 

I don't know what kind of law you practice but I'm guessing contracts aren't your strongest area. Stick to what you are good at. Take some time to enjoy your puppy. And - please - neuter him when the time is right per your contract. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Coopsmom (Jan 13, 2015)

AK_Whiskey said:


> No. I don't want any money from the breeder for anything - treating the diseases or any other damages. And no, I don't want to breed the puppy. The main thing I thought about doing was not neutering him because, to be quite honest, I don't feel comfortable doing it.
> 
> I'm sure there are a ton of threads regarding the pros and cons of neutering/spaying, ethical and practical and so on, etc. But I wasn't trying to get involved in that discussion. If I were ever going to "breed" my dog, the only thing I had thought about was waiting until he was getting on in years and letting him get laid before he dies. If that ever actually developed, at that point I would like to have full AKC registration for his pups, so they could be recognized as goldens. That's really the extent of what I don't like about the contract and why I might want to have it found unenforceable.
> 
> ...


Male dogs don't think about "getting laid". Please do not breed this dog - you don't have the expertise required. Also, you may want to read the forum rules you agreed to. They spell out some requirements about how other forum members are to be treated and include some specifics related to vulgarity even when posters try to disguise their words by the use of asterisks and other symbols.


----------



## BajaOklahoma (Sep 27, 2009)

I confess that I am not on here much any more, but as I read the first post, I had to double check the date it was posted. I was thinking an April Fool's joke. 

You're not a vet either. There are several on this board, along with numerous other medical professionals. And experienced pet owners, along with breeders. 
Stress is a huge factor in the state of health in an animal or human. The amount of stress an animal or human can deal with before becoming ill varies greatly. And as experienced dog owners, we can tell you that a puppy can become ill very quickly. 

Enjoy your Golden - they are wonderful dogs. Don't be afraid to ask questions, but be open to the answers even if you don't think they might be correct. We are all dog lovers, especially Goldens, and just want the dogs to be happy and healthy.


----------



## Cpc1972 (Feb 23, 2015)

Lol. Letting the dog get laid one time. This has to be a joke.


----------



## cartermarie (Feb 27, 2015)

AK_Whiskey said:


> *I would like to have full AKC registration for his pups, so they could be recognized as goldens*. That's really the extent of what I don't like about the contract and why I might want to have it found unenforceable.


If you _did_ breed him, and they weren't AKC registered, they would still be Goldens. Just because their father wasn't fully registered wouldn't make them a beagle or chihuahua aka not a golden. *But* if you don't want to breed him now, what's the problem? I don't exactly see one. You said you weren't too worried about his 'illness' (based on my summary of your replies) and you say you *don't* want to breed him, or as you said let him get laid /insert eye-roll here, so what is your case standing on now? You have a limited AKC _pet_ with no intends of breeding there is no need for unlimited registration.


----------



## jagmanbrg (Jan 4, 2011)

lol at 0 Yeses

April fools is only one day.......move along.......


----------



## Test-ok (Jan 15, 2015)

> DanaRuns, you're a moron. You'd fire an associate you didn't agree with? You're an arrogant *******, and your legal opinion is ****.


Maybe you've been in the deep freeze way too long...Here's where you went wrong...
1.Stating you were a Lawyer in your initial post.
2. Rather than asking should you sue someone, it might have been a much better discussion if you questioned the contract and it's fine points.

that being said this discussion could have been very informative.


----------



## Rob's GRs (Feb 25, 2007)

This thread is being closed and being reviewed for possible for violations.


----------

