I haz a contract

October 16, 2007 11:05 PM

Are the contracts signed at animal rescue shelters legal?

I do not want to start anything about the Ellen Degeneris and Iggy kurfluffle that came to light today (Google it if you simply must know), but now I am wondering if the contracts that are very common in animal rescues and shelters are legal.

I had to sign one for my latest kitty which stated, among other things, that I had to provide adequate housing and food, that they had the right to make home visits and that I must not give away or sell the animal to anyone. I fully understand the why behind these contracts, but am not sure if they are legal.

Isn't it a question of personal property law? Does the animal legally still belong to the shelter in perpetuity? if I were to die, does the animal go back to the shelter? Or to my ex, who was with me at the time and also signed? Does anyone know if a case involving these contracts has come to court?

Again, I am not interested in hashing out the rightness/wrongness of DeGeneris or the rescue people's actions, but I am interested to know what the law folks here think about these contracts.

posted by thebrokedown to law & government (14 comments total)

It's done in good faith between 2 people, signed and (usually) witnessed. So what's the question here? Of course it's legal and binding and people should realize this before they undertake the care of an animal or else be prepared to face the consequences.
posted by watercarrier at 2:02 AM on October 17, 2007

It depends entirely on the wording of the contract.

The one I signed recently made it clear that they cat still belonged to the shelter and that I was merely giving them a £50 'donation' in return for the right to look after it. In that situation I'd say it was entirely legal for them to wander in and take the animal back if they decide you're not looking after their property properly.

(The one I signed also stated that the animal was entirely mine and that I had sole legal responsibility for it, which rather defeats the object of the earlier statements...)
posted by twine42 at 5:01 AM on October 17, 2007

Animals are property. The contract with DeGeneris could have just as easily been for a car. You can't just give a car you have leased over to someone because it doesn't fit in your garage without the permission of you lessor can you?
posted by Pollomacho at 6:52 AM on October 17, 2007

I hope those contracts are legal because I'm ready for somebody to come repossess very bad boy kitty....I keed, I keed. Now I guess I'd better go read what I signed when I adopted him. I can't imagine agreeing to "lease" a pet unless you're specifically doing foster care but then I haven't read about the DeGeneris situation yet. Thanks for the heads up.
posted by fuse theorem at 7:03 AM on October 17, 2007

Legal? That's an odd question usually. They wouldn't be against any law of which I am aware.

Perhaps you are asking if they are enforceable. To answer that, you simply need to apply the elements of contract formation: offer, acceptance, and consideration.

Was there an offer? Yes ("I will let you have this cat under these conditions.")
Was there an acceptance? Yes ("I will take the cat under those conditions.")
Was there consideration? Probably. Definitely yes if you pay anything. Most jurisdictions would find that assuming the obligations of the conditions and liabilities is sufficient consideration from your end. Their consideration is giving up the cat.

Contracts are remarkably easy to form. There are other considerations that come into play and are defenses that can be alleged to avoid a contract. Depending on the wording of these specific agreements (which I am wholly unfamiliar with) there may be some sales/lease UCC issues that crop up.

But my point is this: as long as the thing you are contracting for is not illegal (e.g., hiring someone to kill your ex), enforceable contracts can be formed over almost anything. One could enter into a contract wherein Party X mows Party Y's lawn and in return, Party Y cannot eat toast for a month and must allow Party X to come into the house and sniff the underwear drawer and take any pantaloons Party X wants. That would be an absurd contract, but it would be enforceable.
posted by dios at 8:20 AM on October 17, 2007 [1 favorite]

Thanks for the answers. I guess it is a matter of the animal being seen as a "lease," rather than "owned" by the adopter. I do think that there are some interesting legal aspects of this, and more so as pets become seen as more and more like children in our society.
posted by thebrokedown at 9:33 AM on October 17, 2007

I think the enforceable part includes not only whether there is a valid contract, but also whether the party seeking to enforce (here, the shelter) is entitled to "specific performance" (repossession of the kitty cat) or damages ($$ in lieu of kitty cat). Traditionally courts reduced animals to monetary value, but this is starting to change.

IAAL but IANAKCL (I am not a kitty cat lawyer).
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 9:35 AM on October 17, 2007

The one I signed recently made it clear that they cat still belonged to the shelter and that I was merely giving them a £50 'donation' in return for the right to look after it.

Is this common? I would never undertake the care of a pet animal under this condition, unless the shelter was planning to cover all the cat's medical bills forever.
posted by caitlinb at 10:01 AM on October 17, 2007

Yep, Caitlin, that's how most of them are worded that I've seen here in the States lately.
posted by thebrokedown at 10:24 AM on October 17, 2007

Burt Ward (the actor who played Robin in the old "Batman and Robin" TV series) runs a controversial dog rescue out of his home in Southern CA.

Their contract not only states that you must return the dog to them should you decide not to keep it, but also states that you must agree to only feed your dog their personal brand of dog food (which is available only through them, sold at an exorbitant rate). I've always wondered, contract or not, if the second item was at all legally enforceable.
posted by The Gooch at 10:25 AM on October 17, 2007

It flies. If you look to real property law (land), you can even sell someone land for a particular use, and automatically take the land back if it's not used in the correct way.

For example, i could sell brokedown my hunk of land under the condition that brokedown runs an animal shelter on it. If the contract is crafted correctly, the land can revert to me if brokedown or anyone brokedown sells the land to bulldozes the shelter and builds condos. The freedom to contract is pretty broad.
posted by craven_morhead at 12:05 PM on October 17, 2007

craven: Wouldn't there need to be a lien or something on the property's title for that to work? Otherwise, how would the 3rd party brokedown sells to know about the contract?
posted by finite at 1:51 AM on October 18, 2007

The 3rd party would know that they're buying a piece of land with that contingency; it would be in the title history. Take a look at defeasible estates. Generally, land sold in this matter goes for less than a fee simple (which would be what you usually think of when you buy land, which includes the right to do anything you want with it).
posted by craven_morhead at 4:57 AM on October 18, 2007

Yep, Caitlin, that's how most of them are worded that I've seen here in the States lately.

Holy cats, I wish I'd checked for that when the SPCA adopted out to me a "healthy" cat with a serious metabolic disorder. That was almost 10 years ago, and I'm still irritated about it.
posted by caitlinb at 10:13 AM on October 19, 2007