So it comes back to money Nobody should make money out of selling animals, if you can't afford to breed a litter then you shouldn't be breeding.
If money is the only reason to stop them adopting their pups on a contract to me that says a lot about the breeder.

Unfortunately a dog has to be in a pretty bad way for the RSPCA to get involved. By adopting a pup under contract you can ensure the dog is not left alone for long periods, not kept kenneled or in a yard, is neutered before a certain age, is exercised adaquetly etc etc All things the RS can't enforce.

There is a world of difference between making a unfair profit and recouping your losses. Some very talented breeders simply could not afford to contribute to the breed if they gave their litters away and, consequently, placed themselves hundreds of pounds out of pocket.

If they can't afford it imo they shouldn't be breeding.

Surely the welfare of the dogs they bring into this world should be their top priority and if they can't afford to do this properly then they shouldn't do it at all.

They can afford it when people pay a fair price for the puppies. I don't call giving puppies away "doing it properly" :smt001

The pups wouldn't be given away, they'd be adopted on contract to ensure their safety :smt001

Yes but as already pointed out,the contract is not legally binding so how would that ensure there safety?

Adoption contracts ARE legally binding :smt001 hence this discussion

Well, coming at it from the other direction, personally, I would not pay several hundred pounds for a dog that someone else continued to own.

Most do anne yes but not all i myself adopted from a very well known and well respected animal welfare society in the north and i never had a home check