Forgive me, AnnieC

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Appa23
Posts: 3747
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

Forgive me, AnnieC

#1 Post by Appa23 » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:45 am

It might be best if AnnieCamaro and the gang, as well as Bruce and other animal Bbs leave the room for a moment.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

This is the STUPIDEST thing that I have read in some time.

So Ellen buys a pet, and it does not work out as planned, so she gives said pet to a friend. The story should end at this point. After all, if I bought a life-size Spiderman, only to have to give it to someone else after finding out that it is scaring my daughter, I doubt that Sharper Image is going to retrieve Spidey from that person's house, declaring them unfit to have something so cool.

Call the sale whatever you want, but this "Mutts & Moms" is not an adoption agency placing a child, and they should not act as if it is. Would these poeple have even known about the dog's change in ownership if Ellen was not famous and talked about it on her show? Does this "agency" schedule in-home "doggie social worker" visits for six months until the sale is final? Give me a break.



Psst -- "Mutts and Moms", I have a secret for you.

IGGY IS A DOG! GET OVER IT!

User avatar
PlacentiaSoccerMom
Posts: 8134
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:47 am
Location: Placentia, CA
Contact:

#2 Post by PlacentiaSoccerMom » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:12 am

I've been following this story.

With all of the dogs out there that don't have homes, I applaud Ellen for trying to find a new home for the dog when it didn't get along with her cats. The only thing that she should have done was to change the registration of the microchip to her name and address, rather than leaving the dog in the name of Mutts and Moms. I believe that if she had done this, the police would not have taken the dog away.

From what I understand the Mutts and Moms people have been getting death threats and have filed a police report.

User avatar
Appa23
Posts: 3747
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

#3 Post by Appa23 » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:19 am

The police were involved? I am shocked that the police would have taken part. I thought that this group had gone to the house and seized the dog.

From my experiences in private pratice, the police never want to get involved in these "he said/she said", who is the real owner, property disputes. They want a court order before they seize anything.

Seeing how Mutts no longer owned the dog, why would the police get involved (especially since the dog apparently was staying at a good home)?

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

#4 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:21 am

Is there something wrong with enforcing a contract? Your post seems to assume there was final sale of a chattel.

So these people are a bit crazy and overprotective about their rescued animals, that would certainly make them fit in around here.

My guess is the contracts got started with people "adopting" dogs and then selling them for medical research.
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
Appa23
Posts: 3747
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

#5 Post by Appa23 » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:26 am

Well, TMITSS, I have not seen the contract, but my understanding is that the issue is that this group does not place dogs with families with young children. That is their policy. Fine.

Here, they did not place the dog with such a family. They placed it with Ellen. At that point, sale was final, delivery was made, and Ellen is the new owner. At that point, she is free to do with the "property" what she wants.

It seems to me what this Mutts group is trying to do is close a loophole.

M & M seemingly has closed their site, so I can not see the actual terms.

User avatar
mrkelley23
Posts: 6260
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: Somewhere between Bureaucracy and Despair

#6 Post by mrkelley23 » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:31 am

Appa23 wrote:Well, TMITSS, I have no seen the contract, but my understanding is that the issue is that this group does not place dogs with families with young children. That is their policy. Fine.

Here, they did not place the dog with such a family. They placed it with Ellen. At that point, sale was final, delivery was made, and Ellen is the new owner. At that point, she is free to do with the "property" what she wants.

It seems to me what this Mutts group is trying to do is close a loophole.
This may sound like I'm being facetious, but I'm really not trying to be.

I moved into a house in a subdivision that has a list of covenants, most of which seem to be vague and open to much interpretation to me. But I signed it, anyway. Does that mean that now, 7 years later, I may "do with my property" what I please, even if it violates the covenants?

I'm curious for more than one reason.

I'm thinking the adoption contract could be written in such a way as to disallow what Ellen did, with the consequence being forfeiture of the "property."
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

User avatar
MarleysGh0st
Posts: 27930
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Elsewhere

#7 Post by MarleysGh0st » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:34 am

Appa23 wrote: Here, they did not place the dog with such a family. They placed it with Ellen. At that point, sale was final, delivery was made, and Ellen is the new owner. At that point, she is free to do with the "property" what she wants.
I can't get the article to open to read all the details.

However, the fact that they have a placement process indicates that they have set up a special protocol for the care and protection of a living creature. Therefore, it stands to reason that the person who is granted that care is not entirely free with dispose of that "property" as she wishes, as soon as the placement is complete.

This is, to some degree, similiar to the adoption process for a human, while in no way trying to diminish the significance of the latter or dismissing the aspects in which they are different.

User avatar
silvercamaro
Dog's Best Friend
Posts: 9608
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Forgive me, AnnieC

#8 Post by silvercamaro » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:36 am

Appa23 wrote: Call the sale whatever you want, but this "Mutts & Moms" is not an adoption agency placing a child, and they should not act as if it is. Would these poeple have even known about the dog's change in ownership if Ellen was not famous and talked about it on her show? Does this "agency" schedule in-home "doggie social worker" visits for six months until the sale is final? Give me a break.

Psst -- "Mutts and Moms", I have a secret for you.

IGGY IS A DOG! GET OVER IT!
I have mixed emotions about this, because I cannot believe that any dog could be luckier than to be placed in a home with two young girls who love it.

On the other hand (and you knew there would be one more hand,) the pet adoption people do take their jobs seriously. They want to make darn sure that pets previously mistreated or abandoned are never, never mistreated or abandoned again. For the most part, they volunteer their own time and money toward this goal. For that, they ask in return for the right to make sure the animal is placed in a good home by whatever standards they have developed.

I have signed such agreements with one breeder, with the animal shelter where I found Annie, and with the rescue group that permitted Rusty to enter our pack. Rusty's rescue group was the most stringent. They had a long and detailed application, specified certain books that should be read before placement, demanded references (and they called them,) and our vet's phone number, whom they also called to insure I was diligent about vaccinations and other needed medical attention. Furthermore, they made a home visit to look at Rusty's potential surroundings and the other animals with whom he would live. And, yes, they called a couple of times afterwards to make sure Rusty had adapted well to his new home, family and "siblings." From their standpoint, the process is very much like adoption.

The thing is that Ellen signed a legal agreement. Whether any such agreement is about a dog, a new car, a child, or your inflatable Spiderman, that agreement is supposed to mean something, if the law ever is to mean anything. You don't have the right to determine that laws can apply only to what you think is important.

Considering the circumstances, I think the agency should have given Ellen's hairdresser's family first chance to apply for the dog, giving that application the fast-track, and leaving the dog in the home pending approval (which would probably not be denied unless someone in the family had a history of animal cruelty or similar unsuitable behavior.)

User avatar
Appa23
Posts: 3747
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

#9 Post by Appa23 » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:38 am

MrK, the point of the matter is that you still are able to sell the property, if you desire, subject to those covenants. Moreover, if you violate a covenant, you do not lose your ownership of the property.

Here, if the clause reads as TMITSS thinks that it does, then Ellen really does not own the dog. She effectively is leasing it. She has to give the dog back to M & M if she does not want the dog, at any point in time.

I have trouble seeing such a contract provision being enforceable. To me, it would be counter to society's best interests. Would you buy a car if the terms of the sale states that if you wanted a new car, you had to give the car back to the original dealership? (notice, give and not sell back).


["best interests" is not the right term, but I can not think of the correct legal theory right now]

["contrary to lublic policy" is what I meant.]
Last edited by Appa23 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PlacentiaSoccerMom
Posts: 8134
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:47 am
Location: Placentia, CA
Contact:

#10 Post by PlacentiaSoccerMom » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:47 am

From what I have read, this rescue group went against it's own policies when Ellen got the dog, they didn't do a home inspection to make sure that Ellen had a suitable home. They did accept her $600 for the dog.

When the rescue group found out about the new family having the dog, they showed up at the new home under the pretense of doing a home inspection, but in reality they were waiting for the police to come to the house to take the dog.

I admire what rescue groups do for the animals they are trying to save. I am afraid that people who don't understand the reasoning behind the actions of this rescue group will think that all of the groups are a bit wacky and may choose not to rescue a deserving pet.

BTW, the girls want to rescue a dog, but we can't because of the bunnies.
We talked to the people at Hemopet last weekend and they told Emma that she could come down and play with the Greyhounds each week. Not only would she get to play with the dogs, but it would help them see how well the dogs do with children.

User avatar
peacock2121
Posts: 18451
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am

#11 Post by peacock2121 » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:50 am

I am once again reminded of why I decided to stop reading HoltDad's posts.

Too bad I haven't trained myself for this newest name as well.

If you are going to be outraged - know that facts.

Portia signed the agreement that if the dog did not work out, she would return it to the agency.

period

For a lawyer, you don't seem to hold contracts in very high regard.

User avatar
Appa23
Posts: 3747
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

#12 Post by Appa23 » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:55 am

SC, I know where you come from on this topic. My Sis-in-Law is actively involved in malamute rescue, housing many until they are found new homes. I think that it is great (and responsible) for these groups to make people jump through hoops, do checks, and all of the rest before placing a dog in the home. However, once the dog is there, and the sale is completed, the transaction is completed.

Marley said, "This is, to some degree, similiar to the adoption process for a human, while in no way trying to diminish the significance of the latter or dismissing the aspects in which they are different." One of my points is that it is nothing like a real adoption process, and we should do everythin ghtat we can to make sure that people do not think that they are the same. There is all the difference in the world between a human being and an animal (no matter how much you love them). You should not treat the two processes anywhere the same. The stakes are infinitely higher in the former case. Moreover, there already are laws in place to handle how to handle the unbelievable event that a family no longer wants a child.

If one was going to compare an adoption to the sale of a dog, then I would say that this is true: your placement agency only has a say until the adoption hearing. Once the decree is signed, they are done. Here, once the money is paid and the dog is handed over to the owner, Mutts & Moms is done.

User avatar
Appa23
Posts: 3747
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

#13 Post by Appa23 » Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:00 pm

Oh boy, legal advice from Pea. What's next, driving advice from Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears?

First, as near as I can tell, no one actually knows what the "agreement" said. Right now, we are guessing what it said.

Second, as I noted, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of contract provisions that are held to be unenforceable every day. It is part of contract law.

Lastly, I am upholding contract law. Ellen and Portia paid for an item that was palced for sale. Once the exchange of consideration was made, the transaction was done.

User avatar
MarleysGh0st
Posts: 27930
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:55 am
Location: Elsewhere

#14 Post by MarleysGh0st » Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:11 pm

Appa23 wrote:Marley said, "This is, to some degree, similiar to the adoption process for a human, while in no way trying to diminish the significance of the latter or dismissing the aspects in which they are different." One of my points is that it is nothing like a real adoption process, and we should do everything that we can to make sure that people do not think that they are the same.
If you have a binary definition of "similarity" in which the only choices are 0 (nothing similar whatsoever) and 1 (completely identical), then this is correct. I can accept the hypothesis that there is an entire range of partial similarities in between these numbers.

As I said, I can't open the article, so I'm not addressing the details of the particular contract in this case or the circumstances of how they went about attempting to enforce them. I'm only responding to your vehement philosophical reaction to the above.

User avatar
Appa23
Posts: 3747
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

#15 Post by Appa23 » Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:18 pm

Hmm, I probably have taken the thread too far in one direction on why I thought that this was so dumb.

I do reserve some judgment until I can see what the agreement actually said.

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

#16 Post by earendel » Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:37 pm

Appa23 wrote:First, as near as I can tell, no one actually knows what the "agreement" said. Right now, we are guessing what it said.
According to an article in our newspaper the contract called for Ellen to return the dog to Mutts & Moms if she did not want to keep it. If that was part of the agreement, then she was wrong to give it to her hairdresser. In that respect it is exactly like a lease (which someone else mentioned).

What Mutts & Moms is complaining about is not just a breach of contract but also Ellen's using her star power to "ruin" the company. The owners report having received death threats and lots of negative e-mails.
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

#17 Post by BackInTex » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:30 pm

Is this any different they say buying a music CD?

Do I own the music CD or don't I?

I can't do with it what I want. I can't copy all the zeroes and ones and put them in the same order on my hardrive at the same time I have some public electonic connection that will allow others to copy my zeroes and ones off my computer.


O.K. I can, but I'm not suppose to.

And I don't. Really. No really, I don't. :roll:

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

#18 Post by earendel » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:35 pm

BackInTex wrote:Is this any different they say buying a music CD?
It depends upon the agreement between the two parties. If, as seems to be the case, there was a requirement that the dog be returned to the place of purchase if Ellen decided not to keep it, then any disposition she made other than that was a violation.
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

wbtravis007
Posts: 1351
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

#19 Post by wbtravis007 » Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:08 pm

I wonder if there's any adoption agency for people who's ever had a clause in a contract that provided that if they found out later that one of the parents turned out to be a lot goosier than they expected, they could get the kid back.

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

#20 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:55 pm

wbtravis007 wrote:I wonder if there's any adoption agency for people who's ever had a clause in a contract that provided that if they found out later that one of the parents turned out to be a lot goosier than they expected, they could get the kid back.
I feel guilty for laughing at that.
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
peacock2121
Posts: 18451
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:58 am

#21 Post by peacock2121 » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:51 pm

I don't.

User avatar
AnnieCamaro
Four-Footer
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:04 pm
Location: Rainbow Bridge

Re: Forgive me, AnnieC

#22 Post by AnnieCamaro » Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:49 pm

Appa23 wrote:It might be best if AnnieCamaro and the gang, as well as Bruce and other animal Bbs leave the room for a moment.
I have stayed away all day.

Grrrr.
Sou iu koto de.

Post Reply