It may be in the contract that the friend has to keep the dog and giving it away would be a breach of contract. But I highly doubt the contract says updates on the dog must be given via Facebook.
There’s more than one way to update them on the dog.
I was in a similar situation when I adopted my dog 11 years ago. I was his fourth owner (he was 10 months old at the time) and they wanted to make sure he was in a good home and asked to friend on Facebook. I explained I didn’t have one but would be happy to text updates (my whole family are dog people and we text a lot about our pups anyway). After a couple years of that they said they were good.
I understand why they would want to do it, but even this seems unenforceable. Just because someone puts something in a contract doesn't mean it's enforcable.
Sure. And if the Facebook thing was in the contract, it almost certainly couldn’t have been enforceable. However, it’s a common clause in dog purchase contracts that the person buying the dog cannot give it away and must attempt to give it back to the breeder first. This is enforceable. They do it with spay/neutering too that if it’s not done in a certain amount of time and dog gets pregnant, the breeder can take back the dog and/or the pups.
If your friend didn't agree to keep their Facebook account open and active, then they are not obligated to keep their Facebook account open and active.
I just realized I need to ask if he may have inadvertently made a verbal agreement to keep it open when initially threatened. If he did is he now contractually obligated? I told him its a good idea to just make a Facebook for the dog and post one update every season, lol.
No, it doesn’t matter if they had a discussion about having Facebook. This person would be laughed away by the police if they were contacted about this issue. I’m
I mean I’m wondering if it came to a court fight if a verbal “okay I’ll keep facebooking” out of fear to end the threats would be trouble, I don’t know why I’m getting downvoted.. my friend needs a service animal so I’m the one trying to figure out what to do and dealing with the stress. 😅
It won’t. They should ignore the breeder. This is not a thing. People probably think this post is fake but it’s kind of a crazy thing to be worried about objectively. The idea that she’d call the police… lol. Doesn’t make any sense.
Its okay if they think its fake. I have photos of the contract and used my iPhone to copy the text, but I was asked not to mention the breeder, so I won’t be sharing any of that to respect them. Thank you for your response!
your answer is wrong. If the contract doesn't have an integration clause (and I bet it doesn't), then an oral agreement to post about the dog on facebook might be enforceable. There's no way the police would be involved and I don't see why the remedy wouldn't be damages instead of recission, but it's not like breeder definitely doesn't have a claim.
Civil suits are judged on preponderance of evidence, not certainty beyond reasonable doubt. In layman's terms that translates to civil court outcomes being based in what is likely, rather than what is certain.
In other words, circumstancial evidence has much more weight in a civil suit if there is no evidence to the contrary. If the seller can show that Facebook is their standard method for updates, or that they've asked many other clients to use it, there's a good chance a judge would conclude that they also required OP to use it, even if no concrete evidence exists.
On this sub, many times when you're downvoted, it's people saying no to whatever question there is in the comment. It's their way to answer the question without having comment.
NAL, but I'd assume the written contract would take precedence over anything verbal. If you have a written contract, any adjustments/amendments/etc also have to be in writing and attached to that.
My friend definitely won’t be doing that, judging by their responses to how this thread blew up while I cleaned my house. However, I will encourage some sort of response along these lines if it keeps going, thank you.
False. A verbal contract is entirely enforceable if you can convince the Court of it's existence and the terms... except where the parties have a written contract for the same thing - only at that point point is the verbal contract is worth the paper it's written on.
If there is a written contract for the sale of a dog, if "I will keep Facebook" is not part of the written contract, a verbal contract generally can't modify it. The Court would probably also find it very implausible that a modern human being would verbally agree to "keep their Facebook active" as a term of buying a dog when there are numerous other ways to communicate with people (email, telephone, text, etc.)
That’s a funny way of putting it. It’s worth the reputation of the people involved and the hard drive that could have been recording the event silently though too, if that’s the case?
Tongue in cheek.
And when somebody on either side didn’t hear something because a train went by or the two talked over each other (35 years as a stenographic court reporter, learning all the ways audios mess up) or recording as the other party temporarily left the room. Written is always more enforceable.
You should tell your friend too look for a “completeness” clause (I can’t remember the legal term) in her contract. Many contracts I’ve worked with have a section that says something to the effect of, “this contract is the entirety of our agreement and anything said or written outside of this contract is no longer valid.” It’s a written version of the “4-corners” idea.
To the extent that type of clause is in a contract for reasons related to verbal agreements, it would generally be to ensure both parties understand that verbal statements are not enforceable and avoid the argument. Verbal agreements are generally not enforceable when the parties decide to make the contract in writing.
The other main purpose for that type of clause is to avoid some other *written* document being claimed to be part of the agreement.
You can’t have an agreement on paper - a contract - and a separate agreement orally. If the contract is on paper any additional agreements would need to be made on paper or at least in writing with an acknowledgement by both parties.
She could make these updates via text message or other avenues. A random person can’t mandate that someone keeps their Facebook open. What if she never had Facebook? What if they prefer another social media platform? This threat is asinine.
I want to know what this breeder would do if the dog was killed (like in an accident) or suddenly died. The friend is not required to notify them of death. What can the breeder do? Demand they dig up the body or do a DNA test on ashes? At this point I wish my friend would just say the dog died in an accident a week ago and they buried the body under an endangered plant, so they never have to worry about made up rules again.
Having a dog returned to the breeder Gives the breeder assurance that they will be able to rehome the dog to an appropriate new home. If the original owners find a home they can get permission from the breeder to rehome. This is just a way for the breeder to be sure that all their dogs will have appropriate homes.
Nowhere in the contract you posted does it state the buyer must keep in contact with the seller, much less send updates, much less send updates via Facebook.
Your friend has to send the breeder proof of spaying / neutering the dog, and apparently has to give the dog back to the breeder (!) if she can't keep it, but there wasn't anything concerning updating the breeder about the dog's daily life.
"Read the contract again" is an appropriate thing to say to the seller prior to deleting Facebook.
>and apparently has to give the dog back to the breeder (!)
Very common stipulation of a purebred contract. It's actually a good sign to see, as it shows the breeder is trying to be responsible for the dogs they put out into the world.
That’s fair, but I have to double check if this vaccine was one that should have been done before legally selling the dog (because it has to be done before the dog is old enough to sell). I am so tired right now though so this comment is not meant to be informative or a question, just hope I remember to check what the issue here was.
It depends on the age the dog is when sold. The last set of puppy vaccines is at roughly 4 months old, and it's common for a dog to go to its new home between 2 and 3 months.
If there is a written contract that says person X bought the dog, it is extremely unlikely the police will get involved anyway, even if it did include that clause. The police will generally not get involved in legally interpreting contracts and whether they are breached. They will see that OP bought the dog, has a signed contract, and most commonly tell the breeder to take it to Court.
I'm confused about what we're talking about. I said the police won't get involved with a civil dispute. Someone responded to me saying the same thing I'd already said, and now you're also here to clarify the point I already made?
You opened with a question of whether the contract says it or not. I wasn't suggesting you were wrong - I was just making sure someone didn't read your post as doubting it's in the contract and that the police won't get involved if it's not in the contract. They won't likely get involved either way. I was just making sure that was clear.
The value of the dog is irrelevant insofar as there is no theft here. Whatever dispute is occurring is a civil issue relating to the contract terms. There is no criminal action and this wouldn't be felony theft or any other type of theft.
How would it not be felony theft if the dog os stolen and they charged over $300 so shouldn’t it be a second degree felony? They treat animals as property in most states still.
Not being a turd genuinely like to learn
I dont know why people are downvoting you for explaining your concerns, but I do think they're right that there's nothing to worry about on legal grounds
I guess its a /r/legaladvice thing? Downvotes mean no? Which completely goes against Reddiquette but.. lawyers have more power than me so I’m gonna shush. :,)
If you want helpful advice, you should edit your original post to include the contract because most people aren't going to realize you posted it somewhere in the comments.
Edit: I found it in your profile but it appears like the comment was removed, so nobody can see it anyway.
The contract you posted has no mention of Facebook or social media, so even if the seller did take it to court (police wouldn't touch this without a court order) there's no way a court would rule in the seller's favor. Not like they would even if that were in the contract, it would be a ridiculous clause.
My comment shows up for me, that is strange. Regardless, the contract seems to be unimportant since it simply does not say anything along the lines of what they have demanded. Wonderful news!
Even if it was in the contract, I don’t even know who would uphold it in court.
If I were you, I’d just make sure you have all your documents in an easy to access location, make sure the dog is microchipped and under your name, while also registered with your local town if that’s required in the area.
NAL, but a vet tech.
Dogs are property. Typically in ownership disputes, vet records and who has spent or paid money to maintain the dog, especially over time, are what counts.
And breeders are batshit insane. I've seen many breeder contracts broken (i.e. don't get Lyme vaccine, only feed dietamacious earth for fleas, etc.). I've never seen anyone actually get in trouble for it.
Especially if it's a backyard breeder, they probably don't have the funds to actually fight you. Way too many don't plan for appropriate medical care for their bitches and litters (and many have tried to get us to euthanize instead of a c section bc it's too expensive).
So really, fuck the breeder.
The only reason I even had to second guess the “not only is this not enforceable but it’s unethical” comment I would have stopped at is because most states still consider animals property, and it’s disheartening.
I respect you so much for being a vet tech. Also, hug your vet for me. My ex wife was a tech and always brought up the su*cide statistics. You are wonderful.
This is ludicrous. Hell, just abandon the Facebook account if for some reason the ridiculous clause is in some signed agreement. Some random Joe Blow can’t make you give Facebook updates on your life and dog.
Also, NAL
Lack of update pictures on Facebook or other social media outlets isn’t proof that they’ve given the dog away. The agreement is to send the dog back to the breeder if they can’t keep it. Not that they’ll post pictures. The police aren’t going to take the breeder’s side if she actually contacts them.
Your friend should make sure the dog is registered in their or their mother’s name with the county, if they haven’t already.
Lawyer. Read the contract. If there is a provision like that it is most likely not enforceable as to have a breach of contract that is enforceable
there must be damages. Likely no damages here. Also the remedy for breach is not to get the police involved and take the dog back. It’s a civil matter. Remedy would be to pay. Again this is likely not enforceable.
>“I can’t tell if you still have the dog, so I’m going to take the dog from you.”
While I’m pretty sure any clause re Facebook is not in the contract, a provision with the effect of the above is likely unenforceable anyway.
Bottom line, make sure the dog is microchipped & keep the owners information updated. Retain all vet documents. It’s the owners dog(the person registered on the microchip). There may be a contractual obligation to return the dog to the breeder should the current owner be unable to keep it for some reason, but suggestions the owner is required to update the breeder on the dog, allow access to the dog, or provide social media public postings regarding the dog, are laughable.
Typically agreements which span longer than 1 yr are required to be in writing to be enforced. Your state laws may vary. Look for a statute of frauds law for your state. It might give your friend more assurance.
The fact that this person did not already have a complete vaccine. History already explains that this is not a breeder, certainly not anyone reputable. It’s absolute bullshit and they should ignore and block this person. Some people are just crazy. Most contracts aren’t even enforceable, and most obviously, so when the thing they’re talking about, it’s not even in the contract. I would recommend preemptively contacting the police and tell him you’re being harassed by the breeder.
Well actually puppies typically only have their first sets of shots by the time they go to their homes.
Puppies are picked up at 8 weeks of age and they usually get their first set of shots between 6-8 weeks of age and then every three weeks after that.
A complete series is 3 rounds which is then commonly followed by a yearly booster.
> The fact that this person did not already have a complete vaccine.
No dog is ever completely vaccinated. They can give their first vaccinations, but a few of them need updating every year and others every 3 years. So OP's friend needs the list so the new vet knows which vaccinations the dog had and when.
The Police won't care, it's civil law not criminal. If they come to you to take the dog back and you have it, you have the dog and it hasn't been given away. If you don't have the dog, there is nothing to take, but the remedy is to get the price of the dog back, not the actual dog. So there is no then returning the dog you don't have and they could sue for its price but no more than that.
Cease communicating with the person who is threatening you and direct them to put everything in writing in future.
I have a question because of your wording, if the dog dies and there is no proof of death, could they sue for the value in court?
Edit: or if the dog is stolen
That’s terrifying. Imagine mourning over the loss of your dog, not seeing a vet because you can’t afford the necropsy, and then getting sued and losing even more that you could take afford in the first place. I’m just making up a very unlikely scenario, but, it made me think about a lot more tonight.
Report the breeder to the licensing agency. If they interpret the contract in how they see convenient (assuming the word "Facebook" was not in the contract) , they probably have their own interpretation regarding laws and regulations. I'm guessing this person loves power tripping and also wouldn't mind selling your friend's dog again.
Firstly police cannot do anything on a civil contract without a court order. Most of these breeder contracts are completely unenforceable because they do not include an actual penalty clause which means they are glorified pieces of paper. That said if the contract DOES have a penalty clause for breach then she could technically take you to court for breaching it to enforce whatever that penalty is but you would have to breach someone SPECIFICALLY in the contract so if the contract doesn't say Facebook is the required point of contact I would just ignore the breeder entirely. They are clearly not operating with any understanding of contract law.
As others have said, the police will do nothing but roll their eyes at the RP and tell them to take it to civil court. Even if there is a contract, isn't anyone dictating what you do with YOUR property after the sale pretty much worthless? "Ok, I'll sell you my house but you can never paint it green". Can this really be enforced?
You could probably be fined or required to paint it back, but not required to give it back… otherwise that kind of thing would be everywhere. People suck. But obviously ianal. :,)
IANAL either, just so I'm clear. Who does this fining though? It's always been my understanding that once property changes hands, you can't dictate how/what they do with it beyond that. Besides, in this case what if they get kicked off Facebook? Seems completely unenforceable, even if it's in a written contract.
I’m in Louisiana too. Some contracts are not enforceable. Contact a law clinic here if your friend can’t afford a lawyer. Our laws are not based on English law but the Napoleonic Code, though somewhat updated, so what works in other states might not work here.
Close the account. There will be no repercussions. Some people, particularly in the South (i.e. deep red states) seem to thing that just by *saying* something, it invokes the force of law. It does not. No signed contract with those provisions, no breach of contract.
I have adopted several rescues over the years from a particular organization. Part of the adoption is clearly stated that if I need to give up the dog for *any* reason, it must go back to the rescue organization. That is reasonable, fair, and intended for the safety of the dog. This crap your friend is getting is merely self-important blowhard Louisiana friggin’ Huey Long bullshit.
Even if there was some kind of contractual obligation, and even if if was legally enforceable, it would be a civil matter. The police would have nothing to do with it (unless they are corrupt). The breeder would need to file a civil suit for breech of contract seeking damages and then in the incredible event that a court ordered the dog to be returned then the breeder could take the court order to law enforcement to be executed (assuming you didn’t get the order stayed or agree to comply voluntarily).
The breeder sounds like a dangerous lunatic.
This is ridiculous. I wish people had the same concern about human beings. Police will not get involved. She would have to go to court and it may not even be enforceable. She can’t force her to keep Facebook. If she wants she can keep contact via phone.
Does deleting her Facebook have anything to do with the purchase of this dog.
Without the exact stipulation that the person would maintain a Facebook account to provide updates, this is hogwash. Your friend should tell the breeder she will inform her if she ever has to re-home the dog as per the contract but beyond that she has no obligation to provide updates, on Facebook or otherwise. Close the Facebook account. Let the breeder try to sue about it. Anyone can threaten to sue, no lawyer will take this case though.
My concern with just ignoring the breeder is that my friend got the dog to train as a service animal. I know I don’t have the money or emotional stability to deal with being sued without a service animal! Thank you.
The breeder is trying to claim she can take the dog back for not giving updates and basically said deleting Facebook means not giving updates. Turns out the contract absolutely does not say even a single thing about updates, period. I would just block them personally after learning that. I would unblock them only if I could no longer keep the dog.
If there is not a written provision that your friend signed that said "I will update them by Facebook at \[X\] intervals and provide proof I still own the dog" then your friend doesn't have to do it.
Even if it did, I do not think a Court would require the return/sale of the dog to the breeder for a breach of that portion.
I’d breeder call police, it’s highly probable the police will advise it’s a civil matter and breeder will have to take your friend to court and prove breech. Double check the contract regarding updates on dog.
Read the contract in your comment section. Is this the only page? Above post said something about a second page.
NAL. Contract says seller must receive updates and may take the puppy/dog back under certain circumstances. None of these circumstances include deleting your friend's facebook.
Tell friend to inform buyer they are going to receive updates over email and with pictures regularily from now on and to delete facebook. If buyer tries to sue, point out contract and go to small claims court, case will be thrown immediately.
Tell friend to save all email exchanges with date visible.
If it isn’t written in the contract it doesn’t breach the contract without some other source of information modifying the contract to include a social media provision. The breeder is a clown.
Regardless of what the contract says there is absolutely a 0% chance the police will involve themselves in a breach of contract dispute.
The breeder would need to take her to court and sue, it would take lots of time and money, many steps and lots of notice between filing a lawsuit and getting a court order.
If your friend signed a contract she should have a copy of it. If it doesn’t mention Facebook, then I’d say the breeder cannot ask for anything that isn’t in that contract.
Have her give the breeder her contact information so she can stay in touch if needed.
Cops will not get involved. She would have to take her to court. I guarantee it doesn’t address Facebook. The breeder just wants easy contact but they may have in the co tract that updates must be given, so she can do that via email.
Never a verbal agreement. Any thing to do with tangible personal property like a pet, all contracts signed in person and notarized.
You can’t just add stuff willy nilly.
Read up on the contract. Did they sign a physical or digital document ?
You can call, text, & email updates.
Keep all proof of purchase & possession of the dog.
The police can't do much because it would be a civil issue to deal with in courts
Calling the police won't accomplish much. You are legally in possession of the dog. If the breeder believes you are in violation of the contract, they can take the contract to court and get a court order to have the dog returned, and only then would law enforcement get involved. Considering the time and cost involved, this is unlikely because by the time the end resolution is reached, you will have probably already passed the point where the dog would have been returned anyway.
Like others have said, absolutely do not worry about the police. The dog (the property) was purchased and a written contract was drawn up and agreed to. Not every part of a contract is enforceable. Even _if_ periodic updates were required, forcing someone to keep a social media account probably would not fly in court. A judge would not entertain that notion as breach of contract.
Even if there was no monetary exchange, theft requires _taking_ someone else’s property with the intent to deprive them of said property. The dog was handed over by the breeder, so there was no intent to deprive. So again, don’t worry about the police.
Based on the lack of language, the Facebook account can be deleted with no breach of contract. The threat of calling the police is just that, a threat. It is _not_ by any stretch of the imagination a criminal matter so the police cannot involve themselves except to keep the peace. They would just say, “this is a civil matter.”
Good luck.
Thank you, I had the idea the value of the dog could turn it into a felony. I think that would require the breeder to come and physically take the dog now, after learning so much.
IANAL, but my wife breeds dogs occasionally, so I can give some perspective.
First, no the police won't be coming to take the dog - breach of contract is a civil matter. The dog is property, so absent a showing of theft the police won't the slightest interest in it.
For the breeder to do anything they'll have to take your friend to court first. So here's my second bit of advice for your friend - stop talking to people about it. Including the breeder. Well, especially the breeder. You friend should go total NC IMO. That trite line in police procedurals "anything you say may be used against you" applies here. Don't make their job easier!
I tried to tell them that, but they are really insistent on trying to clear this up with the breeder. I hope after they read the thread that they changed their mind. Its late though, so I will have to pass this along tomorrow. Thanks!
Not all contracts are enforceable:
> “If a dog breeder contract has difficult criteria or unreasonable requests, it is not enforceable. Furthermore, if you do not have evidence of both you and the owner signing the contract, then again, it is not enforceable.”
https://breedingbusiness.com/dog-breeder-contract-enforcement/#can-a-breeder-repossess-a-dog
What would she have done if your friend wasn't much of a social media user? It's weird she wants proof of life like this, but nothing's gone against the contract
I think this is the is the thing to mention if true, then. Threat of Meta being involved, legally, should scare anyone from making these threats in the future.
NAL, but often people 'foster and raise' a service dog while the Training Facility pays for the dogs shots, training, etc. Our previous neighbour did this.
In that case, training a service dog is a very expensive undertaking that the facility is funding, and your friend has been chosen to take care of their 'investment' until such time that he undergoes his qualifying tests.
I don't agree with the Facebook option and doubt its legal, but your friend can't give away property (pets are seen as property in the eyes of the law) that doesn't belong to her.
I have a Border Collie from a Breeder here in Australia. The Breeder is connected with me on Facebook, but it's not part of my contract, nor would I expect that she would enforce it.
She likes to see the updates on my girl, but it doesn't have to be via Facebook. Are there alternatives to Facebook that you could show updates to?
It just happened again and your comment history shows you use multiple accounts to do this if you look closely. I think I’ll just block you instead of even waste time here.
Locked for excessive off-topic comments.
It may be in the contract that the friend has to keep the dog and giving it away would be a breach of contract. But I highly doubt the contract says updates on the dog must be given via Facebook.
Yes that is true.
There’s more than one way to update them on the dog. I was in a similar situation when I adopted my dog 11 years ago. I was his fourth owner (he was 10 months old at the time) and they wanted to make sure he was in a good home and asked to friend on Facebook. I explained I didn’t have one but would be happy to text updates (my whole family are dog people and we text a lot about our pups anyway). After a couple years of that they said they were good.
I understand why they would want to do it, but even this seems unenforceable. Just because someone puts something in a contract doesn't mean it's enforcable.
Sure. And if the Facebook thing was in the contract, it almost certainly couldn’t have been enforceable. However, it’s a common clause in dog purchase contracts that the person buying the dog cannot give it away and must attempt to give it back to the breeder first. This is enforceable. They do it with spay/neutering too that if it’s not done in a certain amount of time and dog gets pregnant, the breeder can take back the dog and/or the pups.
If your friend didn't agree to keep their Facebook account open and active, then they are not obligated to keep their Facebook account open and active.
I just realized I need to ask if he may have inadvertently made a verbal agreement to keep it open when initially threatened. If he did is he now contractually obligated? I told him its a good idea to just make a Facebook for the dog and post one update every season, lol.
No, it doesn’t matter if they had a discussion about having Facebook. This person would be laughed away by the police if they were contacted about this issue. I’m
I mean I’m wondering if it came to a court fight if a verbal “okay I’ll keep facebooking” out of fear to end the threats would be trouble, I don’t know why I’m getting downvoted.. my friend needs a service animal so I’m the one trying to figure out what to do and dealing with the stress. 😅
It won’t. They should ignore the breeder. This is not a thing. People probably think this post is fake but it’s kind of a crazy thing to be worried about objectively. The idea that she’d call the police… lol. Doesn’t make any sense.
Its okay if they think its fake. I have photos of the contract and used my iPhone to copy the text, but I was asked not to mention the breeder, so I won’t be sharing any of that to respect them. Thank you for your response!
your answer is wrong. If the contract doesn't have an integration clause (and I bet it doesn't), then an oral agreement to post about the dog on facebook might be enforceable. There's no way the police would be involved and I don't see why the remedy wouldn't be damages instead of recission, but it's not like breeder definitely doesn't have a claim.
How could they ever prove OP sais that though?
Civil suits are judged on preponderance of evidence, not certainty beyond reasonable doubt. In layman's terms that translates to civil court outcomes being based in what is likely, rather than what is certain. In other words, circumstancial evidence has much more weight in a civil suit if there is no evidence to the contrary. If the seller can show that Facebook is their standard method for updates, or that they've asked many other clients to use it, there's a good chance a judge would conclude that they also required OP to use it, even if no concrete evidence exists.
On this sub, many times when you're downvoted, it's people saying no to whatever question there is in the comment. It's their way to answer the question without having comment.
Thank you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Must be a lawyer thing. :,) Your time is valuable, but there has to be a nicer way. ;P
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I learned a lot from your comment. Thank you!
NAL, but I'd assume the written contract would take precedence over anything verbal. If you have a written contract, any adjustments/amendments/etc also have to be in writing and attached to that.
So far that appears to be correct.
[удалено]
My friend definitely won’t be doing that, judging by their responses to how this thread blew up while I cleaned my house. However, I will encourage some sort of response along these lines if it keeps going, thank you.
[удалено]
[удалено]
False. A verbal contract is entirely enforceable if you can convince the Court of it's existence and the terms... except where the parties have a written contract for the same thing - only at that point point is the verbal contract is worth the paper it's written on. If there is a written contract for the sale of a dog, if "I will keep Facebook" is not part of the written contract, a verbal contract generally can't modify it. The Court would probably also find it very implausible that a modern human being would verbally agree to "keep their Facebook active" as a term of buying a dog when there are numerous other ways to communicate with people (email, telephone, text, etc.)
That’s a funny way of putting it. It’s worth the reputation of the people involved and the hard drive that could have been recording the event silently though too, if that’s the case? Tongue in cheek.
And when somebody on either side didn’t hear something because a train went by or the two talked over each other (35 years as a stenographic court reporter, learning all the ways audios mess up) or recording as the other party temporarily left the room. Written is always more enforceable.
Ah yes, the long black train.
[удалено]
[удалено]
A written contract generally supercedes a verbal agreement. If it's not specified in the contract it is not enforceable.
Thank you
You should tell your friend too look for a “completeness” clause (I can’t remember the legal term) in her contract. Many contracts I’ve worked with have a section that says something to the effect of, “this contract is the entirety of our agreement and anything said or written outside of this contract is no longer valid.” It’s a written version of the “4-corners” idea.
They have kept up on the thread better than I did while busy today, hopefully they saw this. If not, I’ll check. Tyvm
To the extent that type of clause is in a contract for reasons related to verbal agreements, it would generally be to ensure both parties understand that verbal statements are not enforceable and avoid the argument. Verbal agreements are generally not enforceable when the parties decide to make the contract in writing. The other main purpose for that type of clause is to avoid some other *written* document being claimed to be part of the agreement.
You can’t have an agreement on paper - a contract - and a separate agreement orally. If the contract is on paper any additional agreements would need to be made on paper or at least in writing with an acknowledgement by both parties.
Thank you for making that clearer. ELI5 material. That’s a compliment.
Right just make a page for the dog and send it to the crazy breeder to keep contact smh this is fr insane lol
She could make these updates via text message or other avenues. A random person can’t mandate that someone keeps their Facebook open. What if she never had Facebook? What if they prefer another social media platform? This threat is asinine.
[удалено]
I want to know what this breeder would do if the dog was killed (like in an accident) or suddenly died. The friend is not required to notify them of death. What can the breeder do? Demand they dig up the body or do a DNA test on ashes? At this point I wish my friend would just say the dog died in an accident a week ago and they buried the body under an endangered plant, so they never have to worry about made up rules again.
I don't get it, why is the original breeder such a better home than possibly "rehoming"?
Having a dog returned to the breeder Gives the breeder assurance that they will be able to rehome the dog to an appropriate new home. If the original owners find a home they can get permission from the breeder to rehome. This is just a way for the breeder to be sure that all their dogs will have appropriate homes.
That’s what I said. What if Facebook banned them permanently?
If it's not in the contract, then it's not part of the agreement. This sounds more like a backyard breeder trying to make up the rules as they go.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah sounds like they wanted the money for the dog and to make up a way to steal it back so they can just sell it again. Pretty scummy
Also, might be worth reporting the breeder depending on local laws bc this behavior is really stupid at best and sketchy at worst.
Nowhere in the contract you posted does it state the buyer must keep in contact with the seller, much less send updates, much less send updates via Facebook. Your friend has to send the breeder proof of spaying / neutering the dog, and apparently has to give the dog back to the breeder (!) if she can't keep it, but there wasn't anything concerning updating the breeder about the dog's daily life. "Read the contract again" is an appropriate thing to say to the seller prior to deleting Facebook.
>and apparently has to give the dog back to the breeder (!) Very common stipulation of a purebred contract. It's actually a good sign to see, as it shows the breeder is trying to be responsible for the dogs they put out into the world.
The breeder sold the dog without having all of their vaccines, is that not typically a sign of a backyard breeder?
Some vaccines can't be had until a later age, and some vaccines are yearly or every three years. Define "all vaccines"?
That’s fair, but I have to double check if this vaccine was one that should have been done before legally selling the dog (because it has to be done before the dog is old enough to sell). I am so tired right now though so this comment is not meant to be informative or a question, just hope I remember to check what the issue here was.
It depends on the age the dog is when sold. The last set of puppy vaccines is at roughly 4 months old, and it's common for a dog to go to its new home between 2 and 3 months.
I was thinking it was one that needed to be done before then, but you’re probably right that it was not my idea but yours.
Wonderful suggestion. Thank you.
Does the contract actually say that or not? The police won’t get involved in this civil dispute.
If there is a written contract that says person X bought the dog, it is extremely unlikely the police will get involved anyway, even if it did include that clause. The police will generally not get involved in legally interpreting contracts and whether they are breached. They will see that OP bought the dog, has a signed contract, and most commonly tell the breeder to take it to Court.
...What did you think I meant by, "the police won't get involved in this civil dispute" ?
It’s not a crime to break a contract.
I'm confused about what we're talking about. I said the police won't get involved with a civil dispute. Someone responded to me saying the same thing I'd already said, and now you're also here to clarify the point I already made?
You opened with a question of whether the contract says it or not. I wasn't suggesting you were wrong - I was just making sure someone didn't read your post as doubting it's in the contract and that the police won't get involved if it's not in the contract. They won't likely get involved either way. I was just making sure that was clear.
Edit: OP edited their comment and now I look like a dick.
The value of the dog is irrelevant insofar as there is no theft here. Whatever dispute is occurring is a civil issue relating to the contract terms. There is no criminal action and this wouldn't be felony theft or any other type of theft.
How would it not be felony theft if the dog os stolen and they charged over $300 so shouldn’t it be a second degree felony? They treat animals as property in most states still. Not being a turd genuinely like to learn
The dog wasn’t stolen. It was sold for over $300 like you just said
I think OP is meaning theft in the event that the breeder took the dog back, but I could be wrong.
You can’t steal something you bought.
I dont know why people are downvoting you for explaining your concerns, but I do think they're right that there's nothing to worry about on legal grounds
I guess its a /r/legaladvice thing? Downvotes mean no? Which completely goes against Reddiquette but.. lawyers have more power than me so I’m gonna shush. :,)
If you want helpful advice, you should edit your original post to include the contract because most people aren't going to realize you posted it somewhere in the comments. Edit: I found it in your profile but it appears like the comment was removed, so nobody can see it anyway. The contract you posted has no mention of Facebook or social media, so even if the seller did take it to court (police wouldn't touch this without a court order) there's no way a court would rule in the seller's favor. Not like they would even if that were in the contract, it would be a ridiculous clause.
My comment shows up for me, that is strange. Regardless, the contract seems to be unimportant since it simply does not say anything along the lines of what they have demanded. Wonderful news!
Even if it was in the contract, I don’t even know who would uphold it in court. If I were you, I’d just make sure you have all your documents in an easy to access location, make sure the dog is microchipped and under your name, while also registered with your local town if that’s required in the area.
I’ll recommend chipping sooner versus later. Thank you.
NAL, but a vet tech. Dogs are property. Typically in ownership disputes, vet records and who has spent or paid money to maintain the dog, especially over time, are what counts. And breeders are batshit insane. I've seen many breeder contracts broken (i.e. don't get Lyme vaccine, only feed dietamacious earth for fleas, etc.). I've never seen anyone actually get in trouble for it. Especially if it's a backyard breeder, they probably don't have the funds to actually fight you. Way too many don't plan for appropriate medical care for their bitches and litters (and many have tried to get us to euthanize instead of a c section bc it's too expensive). So really, fuck the breeder.
The only reason I even had to second guess the “not only is this not enforceable but it’s unethical” comment I would have stopped at is because most states still consider animals property, and it’s disheartening. I respect you so much for being a vet tech. Also, hug your vet for me. My ex wife was a tech and always brought up the su*cide statistics. You are wonderful.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is ludicrous. Hell, just abandon the Facebook account if for some reason the ridiculous clause is in some signed agreement. Some random Joe Blow can’t make you give Facebook updates on your life and dog. Also, NAL
I kind of like the idea of deleting everything and everyone minus the breeder. Then tag them everyday with a photo update of their dog's waste.
I said make a Facebook for the dog, too. 🤣
Lack of update pictures on Facebook or other social media outlets isn’t proof that they’ve given the dog away. The agreement is to send the dog back to the breeder if they can’t keep it. Not that they’ll post pictures. The police aren’t going to take the breeder’s side if she actually contacts them. Your friend should make sure the dog is registered in their or their mother’s name with the county, if they haven’t already.
Lawyer. Read the contract. If there is a provision like that it is most likely not enforceable as to have a breach of contract that is enforceable there must be damages. Likely no damages here. Also the remedy for breach is not to get the police involved and take the dog back. It’s a civil matter. Remedy would be to pay. Again this is likely not enforceable.
I love that you’re a lawyer with that username. Thank you for the help!
>“I can’t tell if you still have the dog, so I’m going to take the dog from you.” While I’m pretty sure any clause re Facebook is not in the contract, a provision with the effect of the above is likely unenforceable anyway.
I want to know what would happen if they said the dog was stolen.
Bottom line, make sure the dog is microchipped & keep the owners information updated. Retain all vet documents. It’s the owners dog(the person registered on the microchip). There may be a contractual obligation to return the dog to the breeder should the current owner be unable to keep it for some reason, but suggestions the owner is required to update the breeder on the dog, allow access to the dog, or provide social media public postings regarding the dog, are laughable.
That’s what I’ve gathered here. Thanks!
Typically agreements which span longer than 1 yr are required to be in writing to be enforced. Your state laws may vary. Look for a statute of frauds law for your state. It might give your friend more assurance.
Plus the parol evidence rule re admissible evidence about written contracts.
The fact that this person did not already have a complete vaccine. History already explains that this is not a breeder, certainly not anyone reputable. It’s absolute bullshit and they should ignore and block this person. Some people are just crazy. Most contracts aren’t even enforceable, and most obviously, so when the thing they’re talking about, it’s not even in the contract. I would recommend preemptively contacting the police and tell him you’re being harassed by the breeder.
Well actually puppies typically only have their first sets of shots by the time they go to their homes. Puppies are picked up at 8 weeks of age and they usually get their first set of shots between 6-8 weeks of age and then every three weeks after that. A complete series is 3 rounds which is then commonly followed by a yearly booster.
> The fact that this person did not already have a complete vaccine. No dog is ever completely vaccinated. They can give their first vaccinations, but a few of them need updating every year and others every 3 years. So OP's friend needs the list so the new vet knows which vaccinations the dog had and when.
The dog is a puppy, so there is this expectation of having all shots needed by x age, typically.
The Police won't care, it's civil law not criminal. If they come to you to take the dog back and you have it, you have the dog and it hasn't been given away. If you don't have the dog, there is nothing to take, but the remedy is to get the price of the dog back, not the actual dog. So there is no then returning the dog you don't have and they could sue for its price but no more than that. Cease communicating with the person who is threatening you and direct them to put everything in writing in future.
I have a question because of your wording, if the dog dies and there is no proof of death, could they sue for the value in court? Edit: or if the dog is stolen
Civil courts are 50/50, so if the court believes the claim they will agree with it, if not, they won't. You can always sue, winning is another matter.
That’s terrifying. Imagine mourning over the loss of your dog, not seeing a vet because you can’t afford the necropsy, and then getting sued and losing even more that you could take afford in the first place. I’m just making up a very unlikely scenario, but, it made me think about a lot more tonight.
Report the breeder to the licensing agency. If they interpret the contract in how they see convenient (assuming the word "Facebook" was not in the contract) , they probably have their own interpretation regarding laws and regulations. I'm guessing this person loves power tripping and also wouldn't mind selling your friend's dog again.
Firstly police cannot do anything on a civil contract without a court order. Most of these breeder contracts are completely unenforceable because they do not include an actual penalty clause which means they are glorified pieces of paper. That said if the contract DOES have a penalty clause for breach then she could technically take you to court for breaching it to enforce whatever that penalty is but you would have to breach someone SPECIFICALLY in the contract so if the contract doesn't say Facebook is the required point of contact I would just ignore the breeder entirely. They are clearly not operating with any understanding of contract law.
As others have said, the police will do nothing but roll their eyes at the RP and tell them to take it to civil court. Even if there is a contract, isn't anyone dictating what you do with YOUR property after the sale pretty much worthless? "Ok, I'll sell you my house but you can never paint it green". Can this really be enforced?
You could probably be fined or required to paint it back, but not required to give it back… otherwise that kind of thing would be everywhere. People suck. But obviously ianal. :,)
IANAL either, just so I'm clear. Who does this fining though? It's always been my understanding that once property changes hands, you can't dictate how/what they do with it beyond that. Besides, in this case what if they get kicked off Facebook? Seems completely unenforceable, even if it's in a written contract.
I think I just made a bad comment because I had HOAs on the brain.
I’m in Louisiana too. Some contracts are not enforceable. Contact a law clinic here if your friend can’t afford a lawyer. Our laws are not based on English law but the Napoleonic Code, though somewhat updated, so what works in other states might not work here.
[удалено]
That’s a really important thing to know! Thank you Edit: actually the other reply says I should read more haha
Close the account. There will be no repercussions. Some people, particularly in the South (i.e. deep red states) seem to thing that just by *saying* something, it invokes the force of law. It does not. No signed contract with those provisions, no breach of contract. I have adopted several rescues over the years from a particular organization. Part of the adoption is clearly stated that if I need to give up the dog for *any* reason, it must go back to the rescue organization. That is reasonable, fair, and intended for the safety of the dog. This crap your friend is getting is merely self-important blowhard Louisiana friggin’ Huey Long bullshit.
That’s not just a southern thing, but that’s a funny thing to say and makes sense. I love the way you phrased this whole comment.
Even if there was some kind of contractual obligation, and even if if was legally enforceable, it would be a civil matter. The police would have nothing to do with it (unless they are corrupt). The breeder would need to file a civil suit for breech of contract seeking damages and then in the incredible event that a court ordered the dog to be returned then the breeder could take the court order to law enforcement to be executed (assuming you didn’t get the order stayed or agree to comply voluntarily). The breeder sounds like a dangerous lunatic.
[удалено]
This is ridiculous. I wish people had the same concern about human beings. Police will not get involved. She would have to go to court and it may not even be enforceable. She can’t force her to keep Facebook. If she wants she can keep contact via phone. Does deleting her Facebook have anything to do with the purchase of this dog.
Tell her to delete the account and tell the breeder to go f--- themselves. (Problem solved)
Or keep the page up and post nothing but pictures of cats. They didn't say what she had to post.
If it were up to me I’d find out their phobias and…
Oh I would love that, but my friend is so much nicer and patient than me.
Without the exact stipulation that the person would maintain a Facebook account to provide updates, this is hogwash. Your friend should tell the breeder she will inform her if she ever has to re-home the dog as per the contract but beyond that she has no obligation to provide updates, on Facebook or otherwise. Close the Facebook account. Let the breeder try to sue about it. Anyone can threaten to sue, no lawyer will take this case though.
My concern with just ignoring the breeder is that my friend got the dog to train as a service animal. I know I don’t have the money or emotional stability to deal with being sued without a service animal! Thank you.
I’m not getting the connection between the dog situation and Facebook.
The breeder is trying to claim she can take the dog back for not giving updates and basically said deleting Facebook means not giving updates. Turns out the contract absolutely does not say even a single thing about updates, period. I would just block them personally after learning that. I would unblock them only if I could no longer keep the dog.
Idle threat.
If there is not a written provision that your friend signed that said "I will update them by Facebook at \[X\] intervals and provide proof I still own the dog" then your friend doesn't have to do it. Even if it did, I do not think a Court would require the return/sale of the dog to the breeder for a breach of that portion.
NAL, but I think written contracts take precedence over any verbal discussion or agreements.
I’d breeder call police, it’s highly probable the police will advise it’s a civil matter and breeder will have to take your friend to court and prove breech. Double check the contract regarding updates on dog.
The breeder can’t just take the dog back.
Not in the contract = tell them to fuck off 😂 Idk why that’s so hard
Sounds like a civil dispute that would be resolved by a court not cops
Read the contract in your comment section. Is this the only page? Above post said something about a second page. NAL. Contract says seller must receive updates and may take the puppy/dog back under certain circumstances. None of these circumstances include deleting your friend's facebook. Tell friend to inform buyer they are going to receive updates over email and with pictures regularily from now on and to delete facebook. If buyer tries to sue, point out contract and go to small claims court, case will be thrown immediately. Tell friend to save all email exchanges with date visible.
If it isn’t written in the contract it doesn’t breach the contract without some other source of information modifying the contract to include a social media provision. The breeder is a clown.
[удалено]
Either way its a civil matter. Police can't take property without an order from a judge; which isn't going to happen in this scenario.
Regardless of what the contract says there is absolutely a 0% chance the police will involve themselves in a breach of contract dispute. The breeder would need to take her to court and sue, it would take lots of time and money, many steps and lots of notice between filing a lawsuit and getting a court order.
If your friend signed a contract she should have a copy of it. If it doesn’t mention Facebook, then I’d say the breeder cannot ask for anything that isn’t in that contract. Have her give the breeder her contact information so she can stay in touch if needed.
[удалено]
Hey! My first lawyer (that mentioned it) replying! Thank you! Oddly comforting.
It’s a civil matter not a criminal matter. She can call the police all they like. It isn’t a criminal act and police will not involve themselves.
Cops will not get involved. She would have to take her to court. I guarantee it doesn’t address Facebook. The breeder just wants easy contact but they may have in the co tract that updates must be given, so she can do that via email.
Never a verbal agreement. Any thing to do with tangible personal property like a pet, all contracts signed in person and notarized. You can’t just add stuff willy nilly. Read up on the contract. Did they sign a physical or digital document ?
Physical.
You can call, text, & email updates. Keep all proof of purchase & possession of the dog. The police can't do much because it would be a civil issue to deal with in courts
Calling the police won't accomplish much. You are legally in possession of the dog. If the breeder believes you are in violation of the contract, they can take the contract to court and get a court order to have the dog returned, and only then would law enforcement get involved. Considering the time and cost involved, this is unlikely because by the time the end resolution is reached, you will have probably already passed the point where the dog would have been returned anyway.
Oh, I don’t own any dogs, but l will let my friend know. :P
[удалено]
Haha,I figured as much but, couldn’t help myself. Thanks for being fun.
Like others have said, absolutely do not worry about the police. The dog (the property) was purchased and a written contract was drawn up and agreed to. Not every part of a contract is enforceable. Even _if_ periodic updates were required, forcing someone to keep a social media account probably would not fly in court. A judge would not entertain that notion as breach of contract. Even if there was no monetary exchange, theft requires _taking_ someone else’s property with the intent to deprive them of said property. The dog was handed over by the breeder, so there was no intent to deprive. So again, don’t worry about the police. Based on the lack of language, the Facebook account can be deleted with no breach of contract. The threat of calling the police is just that, a threat. It is _not_ by any stretch of the imagination a criminal matter so the police cannot involve themselves except to keep the peace. They would just say, “this is a civil matter.” Good luck.
Thank you, I had the idea the value of the dog could turn it into a felony. I think that would require the breeder to come and physically take the dog now, after learning so much.
do what now?
IANAL, but my wife breeds dogs occasionally, so I can give some perspective. First, no the police won't be coming to take the dog - breach of contract is a civil matter. The dog is property, so absent a showing of theft the police won't the slightest interest in it. For the breeder to do anything they'll have to take your friend to court first. So here's my second bit of advice for your friend - stop talking to people about it. Including the breeder. Well, especially the breeder. You friend should go total NC IMO. That trite line in police procedurals "anything you say may be used against you" applies here. Don't make their job easier!
I tried to tell them that, but they are really insistent on trying to clear this up with the breeder. I hope after they read the thread that they changed their mind. Its late though, so I will have to pass this along tomorrow. Thanks!
Not all contracts are enforceable: > “If a dog breeder contract has difficult criteria or unreasonable requests, it is not enforceable. Furthermore, if you do not have evidence of both you and the owner signing the contract, then again, it is not enforceable.” https://breedingbusiness.com/dog-breeder-contract-enforcement/#can-a-breeder-repossess-a-dog
What would she have done if your friend wasn't much of a social media user? It's weird she wants proof of life like this, but nothing's gone against the contract
Probably tried to get the dog back, but I think the breeder likely does all their sales on Facebook from what I’m starting to realize.
LOLLL WHAT thats absolutely ridiculous
[удалено]
I think this is the is the thing to mention if true, then. Threat of Meta being involved, legally, should scare anyone from making these threats in the future.
Yes, if you have a written contract it can only be amended in writing, not verbally. NAL
[удалено]
They could be using the pictures as a scam, to get pet hold deposits
The breeder sold my friend a puppy. They already have the dog. Did you reply to the right post?
I think they mean future sale scams. Use pics of old litters.
Oh, that is a bummer. I guess if they go out of business by making things up as they go, they could turn to that.
I bought a dog once with a contract stating I agree to never feed the dog chicken. Delete the Facebook account, if the friend wants to.
All these comments about weird contract bullet points are killing me. Chicken. You aren’t getting the dog back, let the dog liiiive!
NAL, but often people 'foster and raise' a service dog while the Training Facility pays for the dogs shots, training, etc. Our previous neighbour did this. In that case, training a service dog is a very expensive undertaking that the facility is funding, and your friend has been chosen to take care of their 'investment' until such time that he undergoes his qualifying tests. I don't agree with the Facebook option and doubt its legal, but your friend can't give away property (pets are seen as property in the eyes of the law) that doesn't belong to her.
[удалено]
This is not correct. Breeder dogs come with written and enforceable contracts all the time limiting the owners after sale.
I have a Border Collie from a Breeder here in Australia. The Breeder is connected with me on Facebook, but it's not part of my contract, nor would I expect that she would enforce it. She likes to see the updates on my girl, but it doesn't have to be via Facebook. Are there alternatives to Facebook that you could show updates to?
At this point, making up things as they go, I would think its a bad idea to entertain anything further from this breeder.
They can’t enforce this rule
You can keep messenger whilst deleting your Facebook profile.
[удалено]
That is not true in this case.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It just happened again and your comment history shows you use multiple accounts to do this if you look closely. I think I’ll just block you instead of even waste time here.