A negative is always almost impossible to prove. How can you demonstrate law books empty of a particular case?

Ok.

You say you have an adoption contract there.

Does it list any conditions of adoption ?
Did you sign it ?
Did a representative of the rescue sign it ?

If yes, it became legally binding by virtue of it being signed, [ and dated ], that is what makes it a legal document, it does`nt actually need to include the words ` this is a legally binding contract`.

HTH :smt001

I've been searching for one,but can't come up with either.

The only info I got was the following from Trevor Coopers site,which states the following,

There are no special laws that apply to a contract for the buying and selling of a dog. If a buyer simply changes their mind after purchase, they have no automatic right to return the dog and to require a refund.



Unless the seller sells dogs in the course of a business, then the principle of caveat emptor applies. This means 'let the buyer beware' ie. it is up to the buyer to satisfy themselves at the time of purchase that the dog is acceptable, and if it turns out to have defects they are unlikely to have any remedy. The situation is different if:-

The seller expressly stated things about the dog which were not true, or
If the seller sells dogs in the course of a business
If either of these situations apply, then the buyer may be able to take proceedings for their losses and/or may return the dog and demand a refund.

And This,
Buying a dog - breach of contract

In law a dog is considered a chattel, the same as a pen or a cup…
When buying a dog you should treat it the same as buying a second hand car and its very much a case of “buyer beware” the basic contract consists of

Seller agrees to give you dog for £x
Buyer agrees to buy dog for £x

Once the money and dog have changed hands that’s it… contract fairly completed.


However…

If a written or verbal contract is entered into that has additional terms included (like a no breeding clause) or either party makes a specific claim (e.g. the dog is KC registered) then that becomes part of the contract of sale and is legally binding

this only applies btw to those who don't sell dogs "as a business".

rule of thumb here is if more than three litters a year it could be seen as " a business"

And This,

Custody and Access Disputes
In law, a dog is regarded as a 'chattel' ie. an item that is owned. In the event of a dispute on who should have custody, the Court would consider who is the dog's owner. Such a case is likely to be heard in the Small Claims Court (part of the County Court) and the claim would be for:

A declaration of ownership, and
An order for the return of the dog, and
An order for damages for wrongful retention of the dog
The Court may have regard to many factors including who bought the dog, whose name is registered with the Kennel Club and who is the one who actually looks after it. A Court may simply decide that the dog is jointly owned and in the absence of an agreement on who should have it, may order that the dog be sold and the proceeds shared. Another alternative, would be for the Court to order shared ownership, so that (for example) each party may have the dog for 6 months of the year.

Please bear in mind that in a divorce situation, ownership of the dog should be considered at the same time as the other matrimonial chattels are decided.

The Court does not have the power to order access to a dog.

Yes it lists conditions of adoption,Yes we signed it,and a rep of the rescue signed it,
so the same would apply to puppy sales contracts then?

Frankly, imo, if a person signing a contract needs it to be specifically written on that its a legally binding contract, I`d be concerned about their... eligibility ... to actually sign anything if they dont understand why their signature is required on the document...

Quite easily

http://www.gillhams.com/articles/325.cfm

"Briefing Note - Legal Binding Agreements and Verbal Contracts

In order to form a contract, the parties must agree on what either party will do under the terms of the contract; they must have the intention to form contractual relations; and there must be consideration. It is immaterial whether the contract is verbal, in writing, or partially verbal and partially written, although common sense says that recording the agreement in writing creates a document that may be referred to for its terms in the event of a dispute between the parties. Obviously, this is particularly important when disputes arise in respect of the agreement, whether the dispute arises in respect to the work to be performed or sums to be paid under the agreement. Both verbal contracts and written contracts are equally legally binding contracts, subject to the existence of the usual requirements for formation of a contract.

Certainty and Completeness of Agreement

Agreement is reached between contracting parties when an offer is made by one party which is clearly and unequivocally accepted by the other party. The offer must be sufficiently certain so as the parties know what is to be performed, and the agreement must be complete. An agreement is incomplete when an essential term has not been agreed or there are further matters to be agreed. Agreements in principle are usually considered not to be complete, as are contracts expressly stated to be ‘subject to contract’. In deciding whether a contract is complete, a court will consider a contract to be formed when, from the viewpoint of an officious bystander, the parties have agreed in the same terms on the same subject matter.


Verbal Contracts

There is no legal impediment to the parties entering into a contract based on their conduct and verbal statements or representations. When parties agree the terms of the contract by verbal statements, the binding terms of the contract are more difficult to ascertain. Usually a court will look to the history of the statements made by the parties and the performance of the parties to obtain assistance in determining what was actually agreed by the parties. Where one person however has not performed their part of the bargain, and court is left to more uncertain means in reaching a decision. Draft contract documents, emails, letters and order forms may lend assistance to deciding the terms of a verbal agreement, and courts have used similar agreements with third parties to apply a standard of reasonableness in determining the terms of the contract in the absence of writing.

In the event that a party refuses to sign a contract, it is essential to write to the person and confirm the terms of the contract as they are understood, to provide a evidence at a later date as to the terms of the agreement reached. In the absence of any other evidence these communications are may be key in assisting the resolution of disputes relating to the terms of the contract. It may be useful to know that where an verbal agreement has been reached, which is later confirmed in writing but the written document does not properly record the terms, that it may be rectified using the doctrine of rectification.

Exceptions

There are exceptions to the general rule that contracts may be verbal, for instance in respect to employment contracts, tenacy agreements and contracts for consumer credit. In some instances where writing is required, a note or memorandum will be required. In the absence of such evidence of the contract, the agreement may be void, unenforceable, or unenforceable by only one party, or on the order of a court."


-----------------------------------

As the piece makes clear, if all requirements are met in the formulation of a contract, its legally binding and enforceable, if not done correctly it is not necessarily legally binding and enforceable.

There you go, I`ve provided evidence for both sides of the argument, cant be fairer than that

Yes and its in the info on your post where you referenced :

:smt001

But are all requirements met? I'm no lawyer but I do understand that contracts have to be fair. I seem to remember there was a recent law covering Fair Terms in Consumer Contracts or some such. They cannot favour the seller over the consumers rights as I remember and understand it. I am not convinced that it is enough to put it in writing and get some one to sign it to persuade a court that keeping ownership of a dog when someone else had paid for it, had possession, responsibility and liability for it would be fair.
That is not to say I do not use contracts in the fond hope that, as mine are almost entirely of benefit to the purchaser, that they will be encouraged to adhere to it but I have never really been at all confident about where I might stand if I wanted to take it to law.

That's exactly what I'm talking about, breeders should adopt their pups out instead of selling them the adoption contract is legally binding. I get the feeling breeders wished this wasn't true, but it is!! If a breeder really had the dogs best interest at heart they would do this along with other checks...

Why do you get that feeling?
The majority of Good Reputable Breeders get it right,and if what Patch has posted is correct,and I have no reason to believe otherwise,then puppy sales contracts are also legally binding,so breeders have no reason to adopt their pups out.