Since all the radio has been talking about lately is this nonsense with Ellen DeGeneres and her adopted dog, Iggy, I thought I would chime in with how I would have approached this if I were the adoption agency and why I think that legally, they probably are right, and from a marketing and business, questionably wrong. For fun though, I will say that they have the potential of being just as well-off, if not better once this hot air blows over.
Basically, Ellen adopted a dog, the dog didn't get alone with her cats, and so she gave the dog away to one of her friends. See Outrage Over Iggy, but Not Brit's Kids and Attorney for Group that Set Up DeGeneres Dog Adoption Speaks Out. Apparently, like most pet adoption agencies, there is a contract that the adopted owner signs. According to the radio this morning, these provisions exist because the adoption agencies take in a lot of abused animals and part of the adoption process is to ensure that these animals are placed in good homes. Ellen must have signed this contract in order to get the dog. Obviously. (Hint: Ellen loses at the end of this story.)
One of the provisions of the contract says something along the lines that if you don't want the dog, you have to give it back. Obviously the rational basis behind this provision is that it protects the dog and allows the agency to find them a better home in case owner A (Ellen) doesn't work out. By subverting this contract, Ellen is in breach. I don't think anyone disputes this. The law is on the side of the pet agency.
But, like most people who fight over contracts that don't work out or contain some provision that wasn't understood, Ellen decided to tell her tale of woe to her viewing public. And, like most of the public that doesn't understand these things, they have jumped on her side. Sympathy, however, doesn't change the clear terms of the contract.
From a business side though, the bad press that Ellen has generated from this incident can't be that good for the above mentioned pet agency, for now. And apparently there have been death threats, etc. Silliness. I won't be surprised if they take her to task for some sort of privacy claim, which ultimately settles out for Ellen to give some free positive publicity to the company. Or lots of money.
Days from now, nobody is going to remember this stupid story. If anything, I'm sure it has increased awareness for adopting animals and the reasons why some adoption agencies are strict about these sorts of things. And I'm sure that this pet company could weather this storm. If not, that's just more fodder for the case against Ellen.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Ellen's pound puppy and the mixing of law and business without any pleasure
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Let see future lawyer you think that courts would look kindly on a contract that allow the seller to keep an overriding interest in the property forever after selling it?
I know that real property can have deed limits place on them that carry over, but a dog?
Also even with deeds limit you don't have a right to just seize the property without a court oder.
Well, in my opinion, it shouldn't matter. Two parties can contract for what they want, and why should the court step in to relieve one party from their "bad bargain" when they could have negotiated for different terms. Further, by all reports, there isn't anything in this type of contract that would indicate that its terms are against public policy.
I'm not sure how applicable real property law is to your point, but I don't know. I think the general contract principles would be upheld if this ever did go to court (which, as my post would indicate, is highly unlikely). But, if anything I have learned in working on appellate appeals, reasonable minds can certainly differ on contract interpretation. My point is that there is probably nothing ambiguous about this contract that would tend to favor Ellen's position.
But I enjoy the opportunity to debate; if you think I'm mistaken, let me know why.
Post a Comment