Verbal agreement to purchase Cats, Enforceable?

[gludlow]

What is the name of your state? Indiana

We have been looking to adopt some purebred cats. We found an established breeder who agreed to sell us two cats on Friday for $350 ($175 each). We did not sign a contract, but we had a verbal agreement. We had cash on hand, but the seller let us keep that until the cats were prepared (they had to be spayed). We have multiple e-mails which confirm that we had a verbal agreement.

The seller changed her mind, and decided not to sell us one of the cats. She made us an offer on alternative cats, which we were considering. We gace her no indication if we accepted or rejected her alternative offers.

While discussing the problems with the seller, my wife sent her a polite e-mail saying she was disappointed and that we had an agreement, and that she was still interested in adopting the cat. After receiving this, the breeder now refuses to sell us any cats.

She says the verbal agreement is not enforceable, but I think it is. I cannot find the laws in Indiana for a verbal contract, could I take this to small claims court? And if I do, what can I claim? Can I "make" her sell us her pets?

We cannot find identical cats, and were very pleased with the two we selected. Finding alternate cats would cost additional money and time (breeders live far away) not to mention the time and money wasted dealing with this one.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

What is the name of your state? Indiana

We have been looking to adopt some purebred cats. We found an established breeder who agreed to sell us two cats on Friday for $350 ($175 each). We did not sign a contract, but we have multiple e-mails which confirm that we had a verbal agreement.

The seller changed her mind, and decvided not to sell us one of the cats. My wife sent her a polite e-mail saying she was disappointed and that we had an agreement, and now the breeder refuses to sell us any cats (she had previously made us an offer on alternate cats).

She says the verbal agreement is not enforceable, but I think it is. I cannot find the laws in Indiana for a verbal contract, could I take this to small claims court? And if I do, what can I claim? Can I "make" her sell us her pets?

You do not provide enough information to answer your question.
In what state does the breeder live?
You also refused her reasonable offer of another cat, you were in negotion, you did not yet have a contract.
Please remember you are stating that you are "adopting" and later selling/buying, this may have different implications beyond the obvious and laws may differ by state. No formal contract, inspection, possession and no money changed hands.
Here is a link to an answer re adopton of human children, not fur children:

http://family-law.freeadvice.com/adoption_law/equitable_adoption_estoppel.htm
WHAT IS "EQUITABLE ADOPTION" OR "ADOPTION BY ESTOPPEL?"

Equitable adoption (also called putative or constructive adoption) occurs in the situation where a parent makes certain promises or acts in a certain manner so as to create a contract between the parent and child. Equitable adoption occurs without a formal legal procedure, in other words, a parent can say or do certain things that result in the adoption of another person as his/her child even though there is no court order establishing the adoption. For example, a parent could take a minor into his/her home, and act as if s/he is the parent of the child for many years, all without ever going to court to formalize this arrangement. In such a situation there is no court order which formally states that the rights and obligations of the natural parents have been terminated and that the adoptive parents must assume these obligations and rights. Instead of being a matter of law, the principles of equity hold this parent as if s/he had formally adopted the child.

Adoption by Estoppels happens when a parent tries to deny equitable adoption. If a parent has taken a child into his/her home, and acted as the parent of that child for a number of years, even without a formal adoption procedure, that parent is prevented from then denying parentage by adoption by estoppels. Because the child was not legally adopted, s/he cannot seek action in court; however, adoption by estoppels is a remedy that is available to the child, to claim adoption by the parent.

The legal doctrines of equitable adoption and adoption by estoppels typically arise when a person who took care of a minor child for many years dies. The decedent (person who has died) may have died without a Will and the child presents a claim to all or part of the estate based on one of these doctrines. If the decedent died with a Will and the child was not mentioned in the Will, the child may still present a claim for a portion of the parent's estate on the basis of being an omitted or pretermitted child.

Here are other links re this topic:
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arusfavreequitabletitle2000.htm

 

[gludlow]

Sorry, here is more information:

The seller is also in Indiana.

We did NOT reject her offer for another cat. In fact, we were pursuing another offer (she made us three, which we did not ACCEPT, but we did not REFUSE either).

Before we could make a decision, she e-mailed me to inform us that she will no longer sell us ANY cats, not just the ones that she mentioned.

Also for the general knowledge cat breeders do not like to use the term "buying" or "purchasing" a cat, they prefer the euphemism "adopt."

No money transacted, but she agreed to sell us the two cats and we had money on-hand. She said we could pay her after they were spayed (breeders rarely sell sexed cats).

So, would I stand a chance in small claims court to enforce the agreement of sale?

 

[djohnson]

You have no damages. If you 'adopt' more cats that are equal in value and pay more, then you might have something to work with. However slim it would be. You have no proof of a contract, and like already stated, it seems like you were still in negotiation.

 

[gludlow]

Similar cats cost $250, the deal we agreed upon was $375, so there's over $100 there.

Also we were *not* in negotiation. We had concluded the deal, and then 2 days later she notified us that one cat was no longer for sale. The reason we hadn't already paid for the cats was because the seller had to have them spayed. Thus she broke our verbal agreement, and then tried to offer us something in exchange.

It's exactly as if we offered to buy a painting for $375, the seller agreed, and then the seller days later cancels the sale. Surely the verbal agreement is valid, and the buyer has some rights here?

 

[rmet4nzkx]

You don't have a contract, you were still in negotion, it is not like you were buying 1 painting for $350, It is like you were buying 2 paintings that were not finished yet for some reason, perhaps the artist died and the art dealer offered you another painting to replace it, you did not want that so the dealer canceled the deal, no money passed between you, there was no comission and no contract.

 

[badapple40]

As I understand it, there was an initial deal made, a meeting of the minds, to the following terms:

1. Buyer to tender $350.

2. Seller to deliver two specific purebread cats, upon completing of their spaying.

Everyone agreed to those terms. Then the breeder at some point changed her mind.

Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 26-1-2-201 governs statute of frauds for the sale of goods.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a contract for the sale of goods for the price of five hundred dollars ($ 500) or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon, but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing.

Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 26-1-2-105. Defines Goods as:

(1) "Goods" means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale, other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities (IC 26-1-8.1), and things in action. "Goods" also includes the unborn young of animals and growing crops and other identified things attached to realty as described in the section on goods to be severed from realty (IC 26-1-2-107).

In the present case, the price fixed was $350, below the $500 limit. As such, an oral agreement is sufficient to establish a contract and there is no problem with the fact the contract was written. There may, however, be proof issues, which may come down to your word against the breeders should you desire to sue.

I believe a case can be made out for breach of contract and the buyers in this case may sue for specific performance, since specific purebread cats are non-fungible, forcing the breeder to complete the transaction and deliver the cats in question.

Incidently, everyone is commenting on negotiations and what not... this contract was completed when there was a meeting of the minds to deliver the cats in question for $350. Actual delivery need not take place to complete the contract, it was completed, or formed, upon the offer and acceptance of the terms. While the later terms, if agreed to, may act to replace the original contract if agreed to by both parties (a reformation), since that did not occur, there is nothing left to do but to sue the breeder for breach of contract.

 

[gludlow]

Wow.. that reply well well researched, thought out, and written. Thank you so much, this is exactly what I needed to know.

As for proof, we have e-mail conversations logged with specific details (the cats names and the price), as well as the website which listed the cats, with a picture, as SOLD. Not only did we print this out, but I showed it to numerous people at work who.

I really appreciare the time to answer my question. Now I have to decide if legal action is appropriate, as the owner has become hostile towards us (in her own Indiana passive-agressive manner).

 

[seniorjudge]

Let me just add that e-mails are exceptionally easy to forge.

You would have a difficult time getting them into evidence and, if you did get them into evidence, their weight and credibility would not be very much.

 

[djohnson]

I agree with senior judge. This is going to be a he said/ she said thing. Some judges won't even consider email. She could say you agreed to pay 480.00 for the two then back out and now she wants to sue because of lost wages. You have nothing, but by all means go ahead and try.

 

[badapple40]

I disagree -- if it is an e-mail complete with headers and the like, it is likely to hold some weight, especially if it is a print out from a commercial e-mail like AOL that has all the funny pictures that are pretty darn hard to forge.

In the end, it will come down to the word of the purchasers v. the sellers, but I don't think this is a dog of a case (pun intended).

You don't necessarily need the documentation proof, and you have present sense statements made to others with respect to this purchase. It is probably worth the filing costs, depending on how bad the OP really wants those cats.

 

[seniorjudge]

I disagree -- if it is an e-mail complete with headers and the like, it is likely to hold some weight, especially if it is a print out from a commercial e-mail like AOL that has all the funny pictures that are pretty darn hard to forge.

In the end, it will come down to the word of the purchasers v. the sellers, but I don't think this is a dog of a case (pun intended).

You don't necessarily need the documentation proof, and you have present sense statements made to others with respect to this purchase. It is probably worth the filing costs, depending on how bad the OP really wants those cats.

BA, you may be right. Fake e-mails fooled Dan Rather, they might fool some judge too!

 

[rmet4nzkx]

We don't know the reason the breeder, in good faith offered replacement cats, but they did try to fullfil the agreement, repeatedly, which OP refused. Since the Adoption/sale of the cats was contigent upon them being spayed, it was conditional. It is possible that something happened to this matched pair, remember, OP insisted on a specific matched pair and was getting them for far less than the market price, perhaps one was found to be unsound.

I had to place part of a litter of puppies, it was thought that they were healthy, they appeared to be healthy, but 2 were found to have a bone disorder common to the breed and had to be put down before they were spayed, on the website for the organization placing the puppies it showed they were placed.

 

[badapple40]

rmet: that would be a defense for the breeder: impossibility or frustration of purpose. I agree there could be more to this, but based solely on what OP has said I have to stand by the fact that there is solid basis for a lawsuit.

And seniorjudge: I litigated a matter in the eastern district of virginia last year based largely on internal e-mail admissions by corporate defendants. We got our butts handeded to us based on those admissions by the parties. I don't see how a e-mail is any different than an internal unsigned memorandum, and in fact, with headers and the like, is actually more reliable.

 

[gludlow]

We don't know the reason the breeder, in good faith offered replacement cats, but they did try to fullfil the agreement, repeatedly, which OP refused. Since the Adoption/sale of the cats was contigent upon them being spayed, it was conditional. It is possible that something happened to this matched pair, remember, OP insisted on a specific matched pair and was getting them for far less than the market price, perhaps one was found to be unsound.

Again, we did not "repeatedly refuse" her offer for other cats. She made an offer, which I never eplied to (this was less than 24 hours), and then she pulled out of the whole deal (original and "compromise" offers) because she didn't like the tone of my wife's e-mail.

The reason she refused to sell one of our cats was this: She aquired the cat from a friend from Germany. She e-mailed her friend saying the cat was sold, and the friend asked her to breed at least one litter of kittens before selling her. The seller told us that the cat didn't "fill out right" and had decided not to breed her. So, because of he friend's request, she cancelled our verbal agreement.

So it was not found unsound, she was simply in a place where she would disappoint her friend, or break our agreement. She cose to break it.

I have more "evidence" than e-mails. I showed a large number of people at my office the website with the cats, and even today they were still marked as "Sold" on the website. I also doubt that the defendant would test the veracity of the e-mails, I'm not sure if she's that smart or would retain a lawyer. Her attitude was "Verbal contracts don't mean anything, so I can break it if I want to."

If/when this goes to court. I'll update with what the judge says. We plan to file in small claims court after we send a certified letter with a final settlement offer, and give them one last chance.

And we do really want these cats