I had wrote before telling how I breed boxers. I sell them with a contract. My contract states that if you ever get rid of the dog you have to return to me with no refund.
I had one returned to me, they said they couldn't control her as far as housebreaking and that someone broke into their home and stold all their money so they couldn't afford her.
They later called me and said we want our money back, I explained the contract to them again and they have a copy they could look at. Next thing I know they take me to court saying they only gave her to me to train and they want $500.
During court when they gave the magistrate their copy of their contract, he let me see it and I told him that it looked like mine but their was a extra sign. On it. Only the women signed it and now the man's was on it too. The judge then took my contract and compared them and said my name looked altered on their copy too. I asked him to see it, and he told me no, I already got to see it.
I felt this was unfair.
They told the judge that papers were just flipping back and forth on the table and it was just confusing. Which is not true. My husband was present during the signing and knew the man did not sign this contract.
At the end of the hearing the magistrate said he would let us know in writing when he makes his decision.
My questions are, shouldn't he of let me see the contract again?
Is there anything I can do about them altering and lying in court?
And if I send a letter from a witness saying they knew the man didn't sign it here, will the magistrate take it into consideration, or is it to late?
Thanks for any help.

It's probably too late to present any additional information - Small Claims in 99% of the cases is a one-time hearing. You can find out if there is an appeal process and, if so, what it is.

Small Claims - and a lot of other Courts - boil down to the same thing. The sides have different versions and the Judge/Magistrate can only believe one side and has to decide which side that is -

But what about him not letting me see the contract again?
Is their anything I can do about them lying? Or is it better
Just to let the judge decide and leave it be?

Thanks for your answer about the boxer puppys.
Can you also tell me:
But what about him not letting me see the contract again?
Is their anything I can do about them lying? Or is it better
Just to let the judge decide and leave it be?

Also I did call the baliff afterwards and seen if I could send in another contract from a different buyer so they could see mine was legal contract and they altered theirs.
And she said no but she told me she honestly don't think I need to worry about it, that she would be shocked if he went their way. Do the baliff know pretty much how the judge will act to a case?

Does anyone think the baliff has an influence on a case? Or pretty much the idea of how a case is going to turn out?

I don't think you can do anything about not seeing it. He let you see the evidence and to my knowledge nothing says he has to let you see it again. Wait on his decision, there is nothing you can do about the lying right now anyway. You told your side and they told theirs. If you win, I assume the court will take care of them lying if it feels like it. If you lose, do what Judy says and look into appeals. Basically, they didn't do anything against you, they did something against the court, so that's where that will come from, you can't file for them lying to the court. If they slandered you in public, then yes, but giving a judge a forged copy isn't your deal. Good luck.

Wikipedia abbreviation of bailiff

Bailiff (from Late Latin baiulivus, adjectival form of baiulus) is a governor or custodian (cf. bail); a legal officer to whom some degree of authority, care or jurisdiction is committed. Bailiffs are of various kinds and their offices and duties vary greatly.

Yes, according to the above abbreviation I think they have much influence on a case. They would have to have as much knowledge as both attorneys handling a case.

Yes generally a baliff will know how the judge will rule because they are in the court every day and hear what he says.

As far as looking at the contract he didn't have to let you see it in court. You should have done a discovery before hand and gotten it from them yourself and if you had requested discovery and they didn't give it to you than they couldn't use it for evidence.

In my state judges tend to follow contracts to the letter so if your state is similar the judge is only going to give them to option take the dog or leave the dog with you.

In your own words above you said that the judge looked at your copy of the contract and looked at their copy of the contract. You said the judge remarked that your name looked altered on their contract. I tend to believe the baliff in this matter as well. You'll find out soon enough the ruling. If in the future you have all parties sign with a blue ink pen you will have less problems proving which is an original and which is a forgery as most forgeries happen with black ink, not blue ink.

The only problem I have is with the contract itself, which it sounds like they did not question, that would have been part of my defense, once they buy the dog, it is their property, and you have no legal right to require them to return the dog to them, they would be free to sell the dog to someone else if they wanted to. And you can state there is no refund or no warranty, but that is not said from what you said, so there can still be a assumed warranty if there is a problem. Unless it is specificly stated there is no warranty.

Now that would have been part of my defense if I was going against this contract. I would challenge the actual legal status of the contract, since if it is not a valid contract, the terms does not matter

But if the judge is thinking they forged signitures, sounds like he will rule in your favor.

Also I do say, you thought they would tell the truth?? If both people agreed to what happened there would never be any law suits

Father Chuck,

Just an fyi, many pet purchase/adoption agreements have as standard wording that you will return the pet if you no longer want it or can take care of it. I know that one of the greyhound adoption groups went after someone who got a dog from them and then listed it on craigslist, but I don't know what the outcome was. While I can understand the "it's my property to do what I want with" view, if it's a contract between private parties and the condition is clearly listed, doesn't that make it a legally binding contract between the parties?

I did not ask them to return the dog. They gave her to me, with her papers. So therefore it was a gift back to me. My contract was binding in court. This dog was abused when I received her back. She was overweight and couldn't run, she was hyper, not housebroken had no vaccinations of any type. And to top it off she aggressively attacked my 3 grown dogs right for their neck. And she bit my daughter. That was scary when I didn't know at that time whether she had rabie shots or not, then found out she did not. This dog had all the signs of being trained to fight.
My contract spec. stated that if they were to get rid of the dog at any time of the dogs life the seller has the right to have the dog returned to her with no refund.
It also states the dog cannot be used for aggressive behavior, or for fighting.
It also states the dog has to be properly vaccinated.
I left my campground on Mother's day to meet them at a bowling alley to pick up the dog. They pulled in took off her collar handed me the akc papers and left.
No food, collar, leach or anything else. So if they were giving her to me just to train. Why did they give me the akc papers and drop her off like that.
They were abusive owners!!

Here's my problem with this whole scenario - and also why the two threads about this should be combined. Now the dog was a gift back to you? Well, it wasn't. You either had a contract that if the dog didn't work out it HAD to be returned to you OR it was a gift. It can't be both ways. You had a written contract that it HAD to be returned to you so that negates any talk of a gift.

You say that your contract says the dog HAS to be returned to you; no refund. I work with a GSD rescue group and that is very standard language - and we enforce it.

BUT - in your earlier post you said: "I called them and told them they would only probably get 200. for her since she has no vaccinations and isn't housebroken and is aggressive and hyper. They said no we want 500. Well I said no she won't sell for that." This gives you the appearance of a pet broker.

It would appear you just didn't just take the dog back and that was the end of it; your own language as quoted above "appears" to indicate that you yourself modified the "bring the dog back and you won't get a refund" provision by offering/suggesting/attempting to resell the dog - and either split the resale money with them or outright give them the resale money. At any rate apparently the decision on whether the resale value of the dog was acceptable was their decision!

I don't know how the Judge will decide - if there were counterfeit papers being passed around there's a good chance the buyers will lose. But you modified and changed the terms of your own contract.

These posts should be combined because thread #1 changes the thrust of thread #2.

Sorry I worded it as a gift. I called an atty. For phone consultation before our court date and her told me it was like them giving me a gift.

They called me telling me their apt. got broke into and they had no money to provide for her anymore. They said their working long hours and don't want the problem. I agreed to take her back. My contract states exactly: If at any time in its life the puppy is to be sold or given away, the Buyer shall so notify the seller and give the seller first option to have puppy returned with no refund. If puppy is given away or sold, seller is given the sum of $500.00.
I did tell them before I saw the puppy, if I did resell her I would give them the money I receive. But when I received the puppy back she was not sellable. No way, she just needed a good home. She was abused.
They also broke the contract for no vaccinations.
They were saying they didn't return her I was to train her. I am not a trainer. They are looking for money, which we went over the contract at the place again and I showed them I give no refund.
Sorry about the post being like that, I don't know how that happened?

1. They said it looked altered --should be to your favor
2. as michealb pointed out the Judge could say return the dog since their claim is they only gave you the dog to train.
3. They broke the contract
4. I doubt any more information--showing you the altered copy, testimonies saying there was only one signature --would change anything