A lady called a breeder on Monday 14 and Tuesday 15 of December want to buy one of the breeders pups breeder told the lady what her asking price was for puppies and that their was a $100.00 non-refundable deposit to hold pup but would later go toward the price when sale was completed the lady came to the breeders home on the 20 of dec was shown all of pups that was for sale. The sire and dame of pups took pictures . Was told what the buyer would be getting the lady wrote out a check for $300.00. 200 .00 more then was asked for to hold pup the buyer said that it would be less that she would have to pay when she came to pick pup up. Lady was given a receipt. On mon lady called wanted breeder to draw up a new contract stating that she wanted to void all of the breeder guarantees. And not give shots to pup or take it back to vets to have physcial exam . Breeder called the buyer back on Tuesday 22 and told the buyer if she wanted a pup from her that it came with shot and exam the buyer told breeder that she wanted the pup breeder cashed the buyer check on wed December 23 on December 24 the buyer called breeder and told her that she was on her way to look and buy from a breeder that would not give the puppy shot and that she excepted all of her money back since the breeder had cashed her check . Breeder told her that she could have the $200.00 but $100.00 was non-refundable on sat dec 26 the now ex-buyer called breeder back and starting putting down the dame of the pup and how the pup that she ( the buyer ) had pick was small the pup was the runt and was told to the buyer when she first called the breeder but breeder was giving her $50.00 off the price normally asked for puppy and at no time did the buyer have to buy that pup their was 3 other pups she could have pick out .the now ex-buyer said that since the breeder and buyer only had a verbal contract that the breeder had to give buyer all of money back or she ( the buyer) was taking the breeder to court the breeder does have written contract and the buyer was told that she would be getting a copy of it as soon as the breeder computer was working and that the pups was only 13 days old when the buyer first saw and that the buyer would be called when the contract was ready to be signed

A written and signed contract is what carries the weight. Anything verbal is considered heresay in most courts and will be difficult to prove. One of the reasons everyone is told to "get it in writing".

I'm not a lawyer... but I have dealt with this issue before. The signed contract I wrote before the work started saved my butt from the outlandish claims that were made about what was promised and what was paid for later when they wanted more and more and stuff I had no desire to do for any price. My case would have gone to Civil court but their lawyer dropped it like a hot potato over some very real fraud issues their claim opened up had they proceeded. I do NOTHING without a written and signed contract after that incident.

The tendering of money with a receipt constituted a contract. It appears the buyer backed out, not the breeder. Therefore, the deposit is not refundable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wvdobielady

a lady called a breeder on monday 14 and tuesday 15 of december want to buy one of the breeders pups breeder told the lady what her asking price was for puppies and that their was a $100.00 non-refundable deposit to hold pup but would later go toward the the price when sale was completed the lady came to the breeders home on the 20 of dec was shown all of pups that was for sale. the sire and dame of pups took pictures . was told what the buyer would be getting the lady wrote out a check for $300.00. 200 .00 more then was asked for to hold pup the buyer said that it would be less that she would have to pay when she came to pick pup up. lady was given a receipt. on mon lady called wanted breeder to draw up a new contract stating that she wanted to void all of the breeder guarantees. and not give shots to pup or take it back to vets to have physcial exam . breeder called the buyer back on tuesday 22 and told the buyer if she wanted a pup from her that it came with shot and exam the buyer told breeder that she wanted the pup breeder cashed the buyer check on wed december 23 on december 24 the buyer called breeder and told her that she was on her way to look and buy from a breeder that would not give the puppy shot and that she excepted all of her money back since the breeder had cashed her check . breeder told her that she could have the $200.00 but $100.00 was non-refundable on sat dec 26 the now ex-buyer called breeder back and starting putting down the dame of the pup and how the pup that she ( the buyer ) had pick was small the pup was the runt and was told to the buyer when she first called the breeder but breeder was giving her $50.00 off of the price normally asked for puppy and at no time did the buyer have to buy that pup their was 3 other pups she could have pick out .the now ex-buyer said that since the breeder and buyer only had a verbal contract that the breeder had to give buyer all of money back or she ( the buyer) was taking the breeder to court the breeder does have written contract and the buyer was told that she would be getting a copy of it as soon as the breeder computer was working and that the pups was only 13 days old when the buyer first saw and that the buyer would be called when the contract was ready to be signed

---

A lot of what you've written is confusing and unnecessary. The courts won't care that the former buyer was "putting down" the puppies and their mother.

What exactly does the receipt say? Does the receipt state how much of the $300 is for deposit and how much is to be put toward the purchase price of the dog?

As I see it, the deposit is non-refundable. The buyer asked the breeder to hold a dog and the breeder complied; I don't think that the breeder should keep the extra $200 though.

And technically, you do not have a contract. When it's on your computer, that isn't a valid and binding contract - it's an open contract until it has a signature on it.