Puppy sale contract

[Jone Doe55]

Jurisdiction

California

We bought a puppy from a breeder with a contract that has co ownership clause which also says the puppy has no known congenital defects. After a month we found out all litters have heart murmur prior to the sale of the puppies which they did not disclosed. Does this nullify the contract? They were offering a refund but we cant return the puppy anymore since we've bonded with him already regardless of health status. Have we known of the initial health we would not have gone through with the sale. All I want now is full ownership of the puppy, they are not releasing the registration, since I don't want to deal with dishonest people. how do i proceed?

 

[Zigner]

What is "co ownership"?

 

[justblue]

What is "co ownership"?

I *believe* it is a strange agreement that allows the breeder to co-own with the buyer. This allows the breeder to have some control over breeding, resale...etc..of the puppy. Puppy lives with buyer.

Why someone would agree to this is beyond me.

 

[Jone Doe55]

co ownership, they get commission if i ever breed.

 

[Jone Doe55]

I *believe* it is a strange agreement that allows the breeder to co-own with the buyer. This allows the breeder to have some control over breeding, resale...etc..of the puppy. Puppy lives with buyer.

Why someone would agree to this is beyond me.

I understand, my question ws should the contract be void since they did not disclose the condition of the puppy prior to sale

 

[Jone Doe55]

according to other breeder they said co ownership is common.

 

[Zigner]

I understand, my question ws should the contract be void since they did not disclose the condition of the puppy prior to sale

Perhaps...

 

[adjusterjack]

Why someone would agree to this is beyond me.

Why anybody would buy from a breeder is beyond me. They are mostly scammers.

I understand, my question ws should the contract be void since they did not disclose the condition of the puppy prior to sale

Only if you returned the puppy and got your money back.

But you want to keep the puppy so whatever resolution you get is just subject to negotiation.

 

[zddoodah]

Does this nullify the contract?

Unlikely, but it might mean that the seller breached the contract.

They were offering a refund but we cant return the puppy anymore since we've bonded with him already regardless of health status.

Of course you can return the dog. You just don't want to.

how do i proceed?

Since we've never read your contract, it's difficult to say much more than that you can sue in small claims court. However, if what you want is injunctive relief, you can't get that in small claims court under these circumstances (even if you're entitled to it, which isn't possible to determine without reading the contract).

 

[Jone Doe55]

I think the breeder is counting on the attachement to the puppy already. because they know even if they offer to return and refund the owners will not do that anymore since we have bonded with the puppy already

 

[army judge]

I think the breeder is counting on the attachement to the puppy already. because they know even if they offer to return and refund the owners will not do that anymore since we have bonded with the puppy already

You have described your remedy.

Good luck.

 

[justblue]

I think the breeder is counting on the attachement to the puppy already. because they know even if they offer to return and refund the owners will not do that anymore since we have bonded with the puppy already

Perhaps...but did you get a vet check when you got the pup (within the 1st week-10 days)?

Did you plan on breeding? What type of puppy is this?

 

[mightymoose]

...a contract that has co ownership clause which also says the puppy has no known congenital defects.

Can you prove they knew at the time of the sale?
You may be fortunate they offered a refund.
I agree that your remedy is to return the dog. However, if the dog has a heart defect the breeder might not be interested in the dog going forward. Cease contact and just disappear from the breeder's world altogether.

 

[Zigner]

However, if what you want is injunctive relief, you can't get that in small claims court under these circumstances (even if you're entitled to it, which isn't possible to determine without reading the contract).

While that's true for injunctive relief, the OP could seek some form of equitable relief:

California Code, Code of Civil Procedure - CCP § 116.220 | FindLaw

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Let's look at it another way.

You want to keep the puppy. The puppy has a genetic defect. One would assume you have no desire to bread the puppy ever because of the defect. The only things that tie you to the breeder are the commissions you must pay if you breed the dog and the registration which means little to nothing if you don't breed the dog.

There really isn't a problem here.

 

[army judge]

Let's look at it another way.

You want to keep the puppy. The puppy has a genetic defect. One would assume you have no desire to bread the puppy ever because of the defect. The only things that tie you to the breeder are the commissions you must pay if you breed the dog and the registration which means little to nothing if you don't breed the dog.

There really isn't a problem here.

Excellent analysis, which leads the OP to a rather simple FINAL solution that responsible pet owners employ everyday all across the planet.

If you spay or neuter the animal, there will never be an issue with the breeder.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

If you spay or neuter the animal, there will never be an issue with the breeder.

I was going to suggest that as well but the OP needs to make sure the sale agreement allows it.

 

[army judge]

I was going to suggest that as well but the OP needs to make sure the sale agreement allows it.

If the agreement disallows one to spay or neuter, then you simply keep the animal away from members of the canine family of the opposite sex.

No sex, no pregnancy.

 

[zddoodah]

However, if what you want is injunctive relief, you can't get that in small claims court under these circumstances (even if you're entitled to it, which isn't possible to determine without reading the contract).

While that's true for injunctive relief, the OP could seek some form of equitable relief:

California Code, Code of Civil Procedure - CCP § 116.220 | FindLaw

CCP 116.220(a)(5) and (b) are contradictory. The former says a small claims court can award "an injunction or other equitable relief only when a statute expressly authorizes" it to do so," while the latter authorizes "equitable relief in the form of rescission, restitution, reformation, and specific performance" in addition to the relief authorized in subsections (a)(1)-(4) (I guess the intent is that subsection (b) constitutes a statute as referred to in (a)(5), but that's an odd way to word it). Even if we only look at subsection (b), the OP expressly doesn't want any of that. Indeed, the seller offered rescission, and I don't see any legal basis for an order reforming the contract to give the OP full ownership.

 

[Zigner]

CCP 116.220(a)(5) and (b) are contradictory.

I disagree. They are actually complementary.

The former says a small claims court can award "an injunction or other equitable relief only when a statute expressly authorizes" it to do so," while the latter authorizes "equitable relief in the form of rescission, restitution, reformation, and specific performance" in addition to the relief authorized in subsections (a)(1)-(4) (I guess the intent is that subsection (b) constitutes a statute as referred to in (a)(5), but that's an odd way to word it).

Right - it's authorized by statute.

Even if we only look at subsection (b), the OP expressly doesn't want any of that. Indeed, the seller offered rescission, and I don't see any legal basis for an order reforming the contract to give the OP full ownership.

OP can sue for a partial refund based on the defect and then accept equitable relief in the form of a reformation of the contract.