No shaming, just bow-hunting it, and then posting a pic with their trophy on Facebook.
None of the cats who have ever lived with my family have been bought, but all of them have been paid for. Just because someone shoves the cats into your arms (or the cat shoves itself into your arms, as was the case for most of ours) doesn’t mean it’s free. You’re still going to be paying for vaccination, fixing, and so on, plus of course food, litter, furniture reupholstering, and other continuing costs.
Why is he giving them all change? Are they paying with $50s or something?
Don’t take this the wrong way, but I love you
Even though I’m a big cat lover, I agree with you 100%. Even if that woman’s basement was not currently a hellhole, you cannot and should not run a clandestine cat rescue out of your house. It will eventually & inevitably end badly: Hoarding situation (which it kinda already is), neglected animals, Animal Control seizure, euthanasia etc. I would have reported her, hoping to prevent all that.
And $300 is way too high of an adoption fee. You can get (non show-quality) purebreds for that much. Spay/neuter, shots included etc. a shelter should still only charge around $100-150 for kittens, less for adult cats.
Well, you’re going to be paying for food, litter, down-the-road vet costs, etc whether the cat was free or if it cost you $15,000 from a magic cat breeder. Seems silly to say that a “free” cat isn’t free on that basis.
With one exception (a pregnant stray I adopted), all my cats came pre-fixed from people who’d get a cat, have it fixed, and decide down the line that they couldn’t have/didn’t want a cat.
It’s possible that I’m remembering high or conflating other costs (food dishes, toys, etc) into the cost. It was a couple years ago and I was mainly scandalized to be paying anything for something I’ve always viewed as basically free. But my wife wanted to get this cat from this place (‘shelter’ housed in a vet’s office) so we paid it.
Reasonable provisions like this are certainly enforceable. But if they are not reasonable then the courts won’t enforce them as unconscionable. So they can take Fido back if he looks starved after you’ve had him for three months. They almost certainly can’t if you move to an apartment after you’ve had him for 10 years.
Note, that doesn’t mean they can legally snatch Fido out of your yard. If they feel they have an actionable reason to take possession of Fido they need to get a court order to do so. If they grab him without an order then it’s theft.
It’s an interesting question. Cats (and other animals) are of course chattels. Under normal circumstances, where title has passed (taking into account any conditions on which title will pass) that’s the end of it - damages for breach of other obligations are for damages, not for return of the goods.
There are things like unpaid seller’s liens and such, but I don’t think those would be applicable here.
If the contract were drafted in such a way that the buyer was obliged to transfer title back to the seller on breach, though? Would the courts enforce such a clause? In transfer of land, the buyer would get an equitable title to the property as soon as the contract was signed.
I can’t help but think that the court would decline to order specific performance of such a clause and award damages (if any) instead. For cats, it might seem trivial to get the buyer to give the cat back, but when we’re talking about livestock, it’s different, and the same legal principles should apply.
If anyone is bored enough to do the research, I’d like to know.
Well, some breeds produces fewer allergens than others, and as long as people need service dogs, police dogs, cadaver dogs, etc, certain breeds will be needed, but you will be lucky to get one working quality dog out of each litter. The rest of the litter is “pet quality,” and sells for significantly less than the show or work quality animals.
Well, an anecdote from personal experience.
Our horse farm seldom sold stallions, mostly geldings (or mares). (If the horse was good enough to remain as a breeding stallion, we kept it ourselves.) But we often sold foals that were younger than the age we preferred to geld them. So we required that the horse be gelded later by the new owner. Technically, our sales contract didn’t require gelding – it just specified that the horse was being sold as a gelding for X dollars, and that if the new owners kept him as a stallion past X date, they would pay 4X dollars additional.
I only recall one case where a buyer later tried to renege on this agreement – they wanted to keep the horse as a stallion, but didn’t think it was fair to have to pay more for that. We told them that we would sue to enforce the contract they had signed, and they should consult with their own lawyer or a lawyer experienced in livestock law. They ended up gelding the horse a couple of months later – each lawyer they talked to told them they would lose the case, and that this was a valid, enforceable provision in the contract.
So not a court ruling, but legal opinions supporting this.