the contract says that she has to give the dog back to the rescue if she can't keep it. she doesn't have the right to give it away pure and simple. think of it as a probation period. in other words, the dog is not 100% her property until the rescue is satisfied that she is a fit owner.
I agree, I think I would have killed anyone who tried to take my dog after the very first day we took her home, and my dog was adjusted to her new surroundings after only a few days at my house. But in the big picture, a prospective adopter has to understand the responsibilities of adopting. As I said before, for all we know, the hairdresser could have house unfit for pets or maybe even had an unreported ASPCA visit before.
The only reason they can't have the dog is because the kids are 11 and 12, under the age 14. This is the dog btw.
Dogs are just property under the law. They're like computers. I sell you a computer, and you sign an agreement saying you can't use it to post on Clutchfans. Then you sell it to hotballa and he posts on Clutchfans. I can't go to hotballa's house and TAKE my computer back, because there is no privity between the agreement and hotballa. I can sue you for breach, but so what, I'm not financially damaged by hotballa posting on Clutchfans. Either way, I'm never getting the computer back. This isn't an child adoption agreement, bound by the California family code or something. Maybe there is a statute that allows California pet agencies to do this with animals, but it doesn't jive with traditional common law. You can't just go take stuff back if someone breaches an agreement.
i don't agree with that policy. I think 12 is a better cutoff age than 14, the agency is wrong for being so pigheaded about crying over spilled milk. At the same time though, they never should have been put in such an awkward position by Ellen's careless actions.
Ellen thought she was doing a good thing. If she new the would be a problem she never would have done it. She spent thousands getting the dog neutered etc and has a history of finding good homes for animals. She openly admits it was her fault but would just like the agency to be a little flexible about the policy. The agency (one lady) still thinks it is best the family doesn't have the dog because of the kids ages. It's just a hard fast rule to her. I think the dog would be fine with two girls 11 and 12. It's not in any danger.
How do I know what? Everything I stated is in the news articles besides the last sentence which is my opinion (and the Humane Society).
Ahhh, but in a lease, the leasor has a security interest in the lessee's property. That's the only reason they can repossess the property without the help of the court. I seriously doubt the dog adoption agency had a security interest in the dog. This is nothing like a lease. It's a unilateral transaction with a (unenforceable, in my opinion) usage agreement attached.
This contract stuff is all well and good (and by well and good I mean pointless B.S.) but what exactly is the harm in sending someone out there to investigate whether it's a safe environment rather than just take the dog outright? They're coming off as giant dillholes.
I don't know, I haven't read anything about this situation other than a little in this thread. I do know that these contracts are very common and dog people can be hell about them. I once tried adopting a rescue rhodesian ridgeback, it would have been easier to adopt a human. A lot of pure bred breeders were just as bad. Eventually I found a laid back family.
1. Find bottomless pit 2. Take Degeneress and Moms/Mutts owner to said bottomless pit. 3. Push both in
QUESTION: Would people feel the same if they found out Ellen gave the Dog to Mike Vick? I'm serious .. . If they get the dog back and in 2 yrs the dog has run away and is no where to be found Would people still think ELLEN did the right thing? but at the end BREAK A DEAL . . FACE THE WHEEL She signed a contract and broke it It isn't even behind the dog . . .Ellen just thinks she can go around any contract she signs because she wants to . . cause she rich . . cause she got a show as Khan would say . . .SHE GAVE THEM NO WORD TO KEEP Rocket River
It's about intent. She very much wanted the dog to go to a loving and caring family. It was a mistake on her part because she didn't know it was part of the adoption agreement not to do so without notifying. She wasn't trying to get away with anything. You are being ridiculous.
The reason why they don't allow small dogs into homes with kids under 14... is because small dogs are really fragile. And, kids aren't known for being gentle with dogs. It's a rule to protect the dog.
