I thought this thread was referring to reputable breeders and reputable Rescue Centres? NO reputable breeder would behave in the manner I have highlighted in your previous post.

By the way, I have just looked at the contracts of adoption for my ferrets which were obtained from the RSPCA and nowhere does it state it is a legally binding contract - there's so many grey areas it's untrue!

I still fail to see how, since a normal puppy contract (which would state more or less the same thing as an adoption contract) that any reputable breeder has with their puppy buyers is NOT legally enforcable, an adoption contract drawn up by the same people will be?!

Debs

I'd have to search for a link, maybe you could google it yourself. Adoption contracts are legally binding, therefore if breeders were to adopt their pups out instead of selling them they too would have a legally binding contract as it would be an adoption contract not a sales contract. If you don't believe this how on earth do rescues take dogs back or enforce their neutering policy. We have a solicitor on our committee the contract was written by himself with the help of others. I have no idea about sales contracts how or if they work but I know for a fact rescues adoption contracts are legally binding.

Have a read of patch's post :smt002

I have an adoption contract here for Fen our rescue,whom sadly we had to return to rescue,again in this there is no mention of it being legally binding.
You are stating they are legally enforceable so therefore you provide the info.

My answer to the above is "No".
Anne, I agree with everything in your quote above, and would insist upon it.
But by posting the above, you are avoiding the points I am raising for you.
Nearly everything on your original list in your OP is sound, and *is* practised by reputable rescues.
But i specified 2 things which are rarely not - pre adoption vet and dog trainer letters.
And for good practical reasons
Equally, some reputable rescues cannot perform another we both agree on - homechecks - for reasons you posted yourself in defence of rescues - resources.
You then made additional statements to further your aguements, which in themselves aren't actually 'fact' either:
rescues have a homechecking network, and 'rescue retains ownership' contracts are legally binding.

The thing is, whilst we both come from rescue, and work to the same aims, ordinarily, these matters would not be an issue.
As a rescue person, I also have issues with breeders.
*But*, when you post a thread asking them to fulfil the standards set by rescue, then list standards which may not necessarily be true or factual in all rescue cases, then that isn't really fair.
Some of your comments are just *your* personal perception or interpretation of rescue practice, which is fair enough, but that doesn't automatically mean you speak for all 'reputable rescues'.
There is also the issue I raised earlier: adding to the perception in some quarters that rescues can be dogmatic (deliberate pun intended ), inflexible, and unrealistic.
Lastly, as is requested by Nero on the docking threads, i think it only fair to back up statements made as fact with research and evidence, which was why I directed you to that well known rescue dog forum.
There, amongst other things, you will find posts regarding rescues worried about the legality of their contracts, and rescues not doing homechecks as the adopters live too far away, so they use letters from vets or dog wardens instead.

Now I have explained the general point behind my postings, as you requested, I would be interested in your thoughts regarding my various specific points and questions?

Contracts don't always actually state in writing "this is a legally binding contract" If you speak to the rescue, which i assume is a reputable rescue, they will explain to you that their contract is legally binding.

no, i dont. but a private section isnt a main discussion forum, either.

I think you'll find your wrong Krusewalker. Just because the rescue you work for doesn't carry out these policies doesn't mean other rescues don't.

Well, of course they would otherwise, why present it.
its is good enough in my eyes, and that of most people, but if it was pushed in court.....ummm, there is the worry expressed by some in rescues. too much grey.
i *think* trevor cooper, the dog law specialist, has some info on this.

but i would still like your definitive evidence - i want to be able to strengthen the cause of rescues here.

again - how, why, what is your evidence?