Dear Suze -
What you wrote about the commercial code and co-ownerships is very
interesting. I've been arguing the other side of this for the past couple
days but now I'll tell you what is wrong with the "lien" set-up after full
ownership by the new buyer/future breeder.
When a litter is bred from a co-owned bitch and a puppy returned,
the original breeder not only gets a puppy, he gets a puppy listing him as
co-breeder. That means it can be shown in bred-by-exhibitor class and if it
gets a championship, it is one more champion that breeder can claim to have
bred. Breeding champions means as much if not more than owning champions.
In my opinion, if you want a puppy back from a bitch you "sell",
it is more fair to sell the bitch for a much lower price or better still,
take no money. Just have a co-ownership until you get your puppy. You are
giving a puppy and getting a puppy so financially you are even. The other
way, you are getting paid twice, once with money and once with a puppy and
I agree with Dave - that makes the original purchase VERY expensive.
Julie
At 01:43 PM 9/28/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi, Dave and List,
> The buyer THINKS that they are paying a couple of thousand
> dollars for
>the puppy. In actual fact, if most arrangements are interpreting by a
>court of law, a "co-ownership" is a "one divided one half interest" in
>the pup. Therefore, if the co-own must be dissolved, the pup is
>actually interpreted to be worth FOUR thousand dollars. There IS a
>better way to do this legally for those who want a puppy back. You can
>write a contract in which title to the bitch passes to the buyer and a
>lien on the puppy exists. THEN the whole originally puppy belongs to
>the buyer, but the progeny has a lien on it until satisfied.
> A lien like this is NOT new law. This is NOT unusual. This is the
>Uniform Commercial Code and anyone who wanted to research it to put a
>contract could find it instead of the "co-ownership" which has proved
>more problematic to both dog clubs than any other matter. This is why
>the AKC website WARNS against them.
> A "co-ownership" is meant to be JUST THAT. Two people owning a dog
>together. One half of the equity is vested in each "co-owner". Buyer
>beware.
>
>
>Suze
>
>Dave Wagner wrote:
> > Whats in it for the buyer? Lets see ... they get to pay a couple of
> thousand dollars for a puppy, the breeder gets the best puppy or puppies
> from the litter (another couple of thousand dollar value not to mention
> non-monetary value) and the breeder gets to dictate who you breed to and
> sometimes when. Whats in it for the buyer is the better questoin? Maybe
> a couple of litters later if they are lucky they get to keep a good puppy
> that they actually own? This is ridiculous, however many people fall
> into this ridiculous trap each day. There is a tight group who preach
> this is the only way you can get a good dog to try to increase the
> pressure for people to go this route and many horror stories from people
> who fell vicitm.
>
>=========================================================
>"Magic Commands":
>to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email:
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL
>to start it up gain click here:
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL
>
> E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance.
>Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html
>
>All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 1999 by its original author.
=========================================================
"Magic Commands":
to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL
to start it up gain click here:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance.
Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html
All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 1999 by its original author.
