Since writing a series of articles on legal aspects of the dog world, I have gone about my usual activities including attending dog shows and enjoying all the social and other banter relevant to dogs and the fun of breeding and showing them. During the course of the show season I have had a number of conversations with people who were, unfortunately, very upset and occasionally angry about aspects of arrangements they have made regarding what can only loosely be described as “joint ventures” on the breeding and showing of animals.

Those of you who managed to struggle through my previous articles will be all too familiar with my constant motto “put it in writing” but this only works if both parties are clear about what is the proposed arrangement.

Being fairly new to the dog game, I have been surprised at the extent of the arrangements that are suggested. I am not suggesting that any of these are outside compliance with Kennel Club rules of which I am sure we are all aware. I am not quoting specific cases but have made up some examples from the situations that have been related to me.

Examples are as follows:-

1. The loan of a dog on a trial basis (but with transfer of KC registration). The dog was subsequently shown successfully by the “borrower” who then refused the dogs return when it was demanded – but did offer payment of the puppy price.

2. As in 1., but the dog was subsequently used at stud very successfully and the borrower offered payment for the dog but not for the stud fees.

3. The loan of a bitch on a trial basis, but not for showing. The KC registration was transferred. The bitch was shown by the borrower very successfully and went on to whelp, also successfully. The borrower offered the price of one puppy i.e. for the original bitch.

4. The loan of a difficult dog for showing purposes. KC registration was transferred. The owner then became unhappy with the success of the dog at shows and demanded its return.

There are countless other, more straightforward examples of people reneging on deals to supply best dog or bitch puppy from a litter as a stud fee, but these fall into the category of item which could clearly have been put in writing at the time the arrangement was made, thereby preventing later confusion as to what was intended.

Examples 1. to 4. are obviously more complex, but, in my view, contain the same elements which make dispute almost inevitable. Let me deal with the examples in turn.

1. The story here is that the owner lent the dog to the borrower so that he (or she!) could decide whether or not they were happy with that breed and if it got on with their existing dogs. The owner had not thought the borrower had any interest in showing. On the dog being shown successfully the owner regretted letting it go and demanded its return and did not want to accept the sale price. As related to me, the Owner was outraged by the “bad faith” shown by the Borrower.

In my opinion it is quite clear that the fault was equally distributed between both parties. From the facts given it is clear that the owner simply wanted to sell the dog (why otherwise transfer the KC registration?) and would have been happy to accept the sale price. He only changed his mind when the dog showed successfully. We all know the nightmare of choosing the best show dog or bitch from a litter of 10 week old pups! The so called borrower, however, was clearly not willing to pay for the dog until it showed successfully – something which he omitted to mention at the time of the loan. Both sides trying to have their cake and eat it!

2. Again, the owner’s original intention can only have been to sell the dog. He refused the sale price as he wanted, in addition, at least a share of the stud fees. This was not in contemplation when the original loan was made. Equally, the borrower clearly had no intention of paying for the dog until it was proven at stud and became an “earner” – something he “forgot” to mention at the time of the loan.

3. Once more we have the situation where the KC registration was transferred, the owner claiming that it was agreed the dog should not be shown (How that was supposed to be enforced in law I do not know!) Clearly the owner was simply trying to sell the bitch and the Borrower had no intention of paying until the bitch showed successfully. Once that had happened the Borrower offered to pay the original price, but the Owner refused and went onto claim puppies or payment from the litter, something, again, which was not envisaged at the time of the original loan.

4. This is my favourite! Here an established breeder had a mature dog which he or she was unable to show successfully for reasons of temperament or whatever. Another breeder felt they might have more success. The owner gave possession of the dog (no payment changed hands!) to the other breeder and transferred the K C registration. The other breeder worked with the dog for a protracted period and showed it – very successfully. The original breeder then demanded return of the dog saying they wished to show it themselves. The other breeder felt that the dog was theirs and had been given to them to see what they could do with it – this seems a reasonable enough statement but what was supposed to happen if the dog had not succeeded – were they to return it or to keep it as a pet? As for the original owner did he really believe it was likely that the dog would succeed or was he simply getting rid of a problem and only wishing to reclaim the dog because it became a success?

The problem illustrated in all these examples could have been avoided had the arrangements been subject to simple written contracts – I will give specific examples later. The problems, however, that I am trying to expose are, firstly that in all the examples it is clear that the parties had not agreed terms. I.e. both parties had different views on what was agreed, or, intended, and secondly both parties then developed different views on what was intended, such views being affected by what happened after the loan was made.

This is clearly legal nonsense as any court will base its consideration of a contract case before it on what was agreed and intended by the parties at the time the contract was made, or clearly agreed by the parties since that date (an agreed variation of contract). Any such variation cannot be imposed by one party – Both must agree.

The evidence the court uses in coming to a judgment is the provable facts (transfer of possession of the dog, K C registration, payment if any etc) and verbal or written evidence of the agreement reached. Because verbal evidence can clearly be disputed the court prefers written contracts signed by both parties. If the court cannot find any basis of agreement and intent express or implied in the evidence it will not make them up. In short, this sort of litigation can be an expensive nightmare and should be avoided.

Examples 1. to 3. Could have been dealt with by a normal sale contract with the addition that the ownership of the dog would not be transferred (nor the K C registration!) until say 1 month after the date of the contract at which point the sale price would be paid. Failure to make that payment would oblige the Borrower to return the dog immediately in good condition at his expense (or whatever else was agreed). Please do not think I am recommending this as a way to sell dogs. From a legal and practical point of view it is far better to only part with the dog on the day you are paid for it. Can you imagine agreeing to sell your car but only be paid for it a month later if the buyer has not returned it in the meantime? Maybe a bad comparison but I am sure you get my point.

Example 4. Is my favourite because it is a complete mess! There is no clear indication what was the original intention of the parties involved – so what was the contract. Even the other breeder acknowledged that he or she had the dog “to see what we could do with it show-wise”, - so was there an intention to transfer ownership? The K C registration was transferred but, as we all know, this is not conclusive proof of ownership. On the other hand, if it was not intended to transfer ownership of the dog then a) why on earth would the other breeder have taken it and put in all that work? – And b) why was no agreement made as to the circumstance in which the dog would be returned? In the event of a full blown dispute, possession (of the dog) and K C registration might be 90% of the law (as they say!) but I would not want to volunteer myself into this potential court case.

The breeding and showing dog world portrays itself as a friendly and supportive community and indeed many people would not pass the initial “rites of passage” – or continue to function without informal, friendly and practical assistance. This is certainly true of our “exploits” in the Deerhound world – and thanks again to the many, many people who have helped us – you know who you are!

This, of course, makes the upset arising from such disputes all the more intense.

In conclusion – back to the title – “Beware anyone bearing gifts (including you!) The first and obvious point is that if someone offers to take your dog on any basis other than a straightforward purchase, then they have a reason and you had better be sure you know what it is and get it in writing before proceeding further.

The second, and less obvious (and certainly more uncomfortable) point is that if you enter into any informal arrangement do not think you can necessarily obtain the support of the law if you alter your understanding of such arrangement dependent on events that occur after it was made. Both parties have a responsibility to evidence these changes properly.

I would like to think my next article will be about winning Crufts – but maybe not this year!

Regards,

Michael Edwards

Footnote:

I hope you have found the content at least slightly entertaining and informative. It is not, however, intended to give legal advice, either expressly or by implication and if you have a problem you must consult your own solicitor or other legal adviser. As stated in all previous articles, feedback is appreciated, but no specific advice, legal or otherwise, will be given.