What conditions can a seller impose upon a buyer to continue after the sale is settled? I am not asking for legal advice, I am just curious about the principle.
I am considering buying a cat from a breeder. One such breeder has what I call a “sale agreement” and what they call a “cat adoption contract.” The contract has several conditions required to be met in perpetuity after the sale. I can understand that a breeder really loves their cats and doesn’t want anything bad to happen them after they leave the cattery, but can they legally extend their reach like this? For example, it says
I am not asking about the pragmatic aspects of enforcing such a clause, so please don’t give me advice about how to get around it. I am asking if such a clause can be legally binding conceptually because I am interested in the legal principle.
I would think that when buying anything, once you pay your money and receive the merchandise, it’s yours. I can’t imagine selling a car and saying, “The Seller reserves the right to approve subsequent buyers.”
If you signed the purchase contract with those conditions, then you are legally bound by them. It is a civil arrangement. If the seller discovers that you violated the contract, they could sue for the return of the cat.
The practicality of knowledge and enforcement of the contract are completely a different thing.
Cat breeders are nuts. We bought a pair of Maine Coons from a breeder and she was seriously loony in her attitude and requirements. I really wanted to tell her to shove it, but the wife really wanted a Maine Coon. They are terrific cats and I would buy them again, but hardly worth all the wacky requirements the woman put on us.
Those sound like pretty standard conditions that a reputable breeder or animal rescue would put in a contract. Yes, they are enforceable in court. The founder of our dog rescue organization is also a lawyer. We have similar conditions. She says they can be enforced, but has never had to do so. We also make it clear we will take back any dog we adopt out (no surrender fee) that the adopter can no longer care for. So the adopter knows if something comes up, their dog will be taken care of. I imagine the breeder has a similar clause.
You who is probably overflowing with cats and doesn’t have any contracts like that? Your local municipal animal shelter.
You can no longer care for the cat, so you give the cat to me. For some reason, you notify the breeder that you have given the cat to me. They contact me, and want to interview me, or do a home inspection, to be sure I am giving the cat a good enough home. I tell the breeder to fuck off. How are they going to proceed against me legally?
Would they get a court order? I can’t imagine they could just show up at my door and demand the cat. Would it be like small claims court, where you might get a judgment but it is up to you to convince the sheriff’s office to enforce it?
About ten years ago, there was a brouhaha about a dog that Ellen Degeneres had adopted from a rescue and then rehomed to another family.
According to the linked story, the head of the rescue agency showed up at the “rehomed” owners’ door, picked up the dog, called the cops, verified with the cops that the dog legally belonged to the adoption agency, and removed it from the premises.
When we got our last cat, my wife wanted to go to some woman’s “cat rescue” because she sort of knew the woman and thought we’d be doing her a favor. Woman had fifteen cats in her basement, interviewed us (including talking about terms like those in the OP) and then ultimately decided that we weren’t worthy of cat ownership. Which amused me greatly since I’ve owned a cat pretty much continuously since I was a kid and they’ve always been some form of found/stray/abandoned animal. It’s a cat, lady: you feed/water it, clean its litter, make a reasonable attempt to keep it amused and scratch it behind the ears when it jumps on your lap. Bam, that’s everything you need to know.
Anyway, we wound up at some shelter and paid $300 for a cat which struck me as insane and is $300 more than I’ve ever paid for a cat in my life but so it goes*. The idea that I’d be essentially leasing or licensing a cat that someone else still owns would be ludicrous. There’s a billion people out there happy to shove a cat into your arms and take off running in the other direction.
*Yes, I know that covered shots, exams, sterilization, etc. I’m still used to just having someone else shove a cat at me and being “Hey, free cat…”
Note that in the linked article the new owners voluntarily let the rescue people see the dog (and there’s disagreement as to whether or not the rescue people said ahead of time they would absolutely not take the dog), and the dog’s microchip said the rescue agency was still the owner. In the absence of either of those, the result could have been different.
Until the shelters are empty and the streets and fields aren’t full of strays, breeders are simply contributing to the problem and should be avoided. Don’t buy from breeders, pet stores, puppy mills, etc.
In fact, don’t buy a pet at all. Good shelters charge a nominal fee up front, but you usually get to come back when they’re older and get a free neutering included in the price. So it’s more like a neuter deposit than an actual “price”.
And for god’s sake, don’t pay thousands for a kickapoo, labradoodle, etc, AKA “mutts”.
<NITPICK>A “kickapoo” is a member of any of several Indian tribes of the central United States and northern Mexico. Yes, it’s been illegal to pay thousands for a Kickapoo since the abolition of slavery. The word you’re probably looking for is “cockapoo,” a cross between a cocker spaniel and a small poodle.</NITPICK>
Can you provide some court cases where this has gone to court and been upheld? Are you aware of any court cases like this where that part of the contract was voided?
Feel free to start your own thread if you wish to discuss. Your post here is not responsive the question asked in the OP. Please don’t hijack the thread any further.
something about this just doesn’t sound enforceable to me. While I’m not a lawyer, I don’t think I’m going be satisfied that it is until I see good solid court cases that indicate such.
I know contracts often have clauses that state if some portion of the contract is nullified, that doesn’t mean the whole contract is nullified…I just have a suspicion that this could be one of those parts that wouldn’t hold up in court.
To be clear, I don’t have any objections to what’s in the contract, I’ve had cats before, I’m going to get whatever cat I decide to get. I just wondered if the seller could retain that level of control for the life of a cat after the sale.
Thanks to everyone who provided facts. That Ellen story is quite interesting, hadn’t heard about that.
After poking around some, it looks like what is going on is that the animal doesn’t really belong to the adopter. Ownership of the animal remains with the original organization.
With that angle I can see how it is enforceable, though I’m still unaware of any specific cases.
It seems similar to leasing a car. The company owns the car, you buy everything to care for the car that is living with you…but you don’t really own it and if you sold the car to someone else you would be in trouble.
Selling a car or cat you don’t own seems more than just civil law…seems like stealing.
I know someone who, long story short, had a nutty rescue person who showed up for a home visit that was in their contract (a couple of years after the adoption) and confiscated the dog. The dog wasn’t being mistreated or neglected, but the rescuer felt that a term of the contract was being violated. They hired an animal rights lawyer and got their dog back. This was in Bergen County, NJ. Apparently NJ has case law that deals with this issue.
People have went broke arguing in court over what is enforceable and what it is not.
I took this as even worse, that I had the cat and had to move from a house to an apartment. If the breeder didn’t like MY new home and decided it wasn’t good enough for the cat.
Yeah, I would tell the breeder that I will be getting a cat elsewhere.
Nooo that’s not what the intent of that contract language is. If you move and take the cat with you that’s perfectly fine. The intent is if you move and can’t take the cat so you try to rehome it yourself. The thinking is that the rescue group is in a better position to screen good homes than you are because they do that kind of thing all the time and know what to look for.
Horse rescues often have clauses in their contracts that are similar. Usually there’s a term limit on some of it though. Something like, for 6 months you are merely leasing the horse, after that ownership converts to you. If you ever decide that you cannot keep the horse, they have right of first refusal on the sale. It’s a way of making sure that the animal continues to have a good home. I have seen horse rescues take action on multiple occasions for breach of contract. Normally they just want to recover the animal.
For a breeder contract, I have seen this sort of language for dogs. I have’t seen court action on it, other than the Ellen issue mentioned. I think it’s a way of making certain that the new owner is serious about providing a good, permanent home.
All in all, I wouldn’t worry about it too much, unless you’re planning on some form of public cat shaming.
