Basic question regarding Contract Law

[terry178]

Hi, I have an issue which I would really appreciate some clarification on. I won't bore you with the details, suffice to say I merely want to check if I am right on something...

[Manxman]

The answer to your question depends on... your question - which isn't clear.

What do you actually mean by:* "So if the breeder now wanted to sue me for breach of contract or to enforce the contract, am I right in thinking they haven't a leg to stand on, provided I can prove they breached their own terms first?"* Are you asking if they'd be able to enforce the training four times a month bit, or are you asking if you can keep the puppy without paying for it, or do you simply want to return the puppy and get your money back?

If you "train and work dogs" was this purchase part of a business you are involved in, or was it a simple consumer purchase?

[terry178]

Thanks and sorry for the confusion. I was hoping to keep it a very simple question of whether a contract can be deemed binding if the offerer of the terms breached their own terms?

[terry178]

PS - I should mention, I am neither decided on what I wish to do yet

[Manxman]

I don't understand.* If you've paid for the puppy but you decide not to "keep" it, the contract says you must return it to the breeder - even though you've paid for it?* I mean, if you've paid for it, are you saying that the contract prevents you from selling it to someone else, or giving it away, or having it put down?

I think you are overthinking the contract side of it.* The breeder has a puppy.* You have money.* You give the breeder your money, you get the puppy.* If there is a problem you either (a) complain to the breeder, return the puppy and have your money refunded to you. or (b) deal with the problem yourself, you keep the puppy (to do with as you like), the breeder keeps your money.

Your problem, if I understand you correctly, is that you don't want the puppy to be returned to the breeder,*but you believe that the contract says the puppy must be returned if you "don't want it",*even though*the breeder keeps your money?**That makes no sense whatsoever.* Or are you actually saying that you do want to get your money back, but you don't want to return the puppy?* Why would they want the puppy back at all?* They don't want it - that's why they sold it in the first place.

Of course, if you are saying that you do want your money back, you'll have to return the puppy to the breeder - unless you can involve the RSPCA or similar.

It seems to me that you've paid for the puppy - that's it - end of story.* You keep the puppy.* But if you want your money back (or you haven't paid the breeder yet and don't intend to do so) then you have to return it to the breeder.* It's their property.

*There are added complications insofar as the breeder seems to have misrepresented the dog so you might be entitled to a partial refund.* But if you try to do that the breeder may simply say "OK here's your money back - give me the dog back".* Let's take one step at a time...

In a nutshell then, so long as you've paid for the puppy, I don't see how the breeder can get it back.* But if you want your money back, the puppy goes back.*

[terry178]

This is going wrong! I shouldn't have gone into detail.

[des8]

I haven't read all of the thread.. just the first three* and a bit posts.

It is not unusual for top breeders, when selling a dog, placing in the contract a restriction to prevent the dog being passed to another person without the breeders consent. Often it is that the dog has to be returned to the breeder.
Or at least it was common a few years back when i was involved in breeding and showing. It was done to ensure your dogs were not passed to unsuitable homes, and to look after their well being.
So yes, if you breach the contract he could sue you for return of the dog or damages (its value probably). Whether it's worth his while, or if he actually would is a different matter!
His breaches of the contract would not necessarily void the contract. It would depend on how fundamental the breaches were.

[Manxman]

I think you are making this too complicated.

EDIT:* Thank you DES8

[terry178]

Des8 answered it, thank you.