Contracts: sales of dogs and cats.

Existing law generally regulates formation and enforcement of contracts, including what constitutes an unlawful contract. Existing law provides that, except as provided, a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat in which ownership is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the dog or cat is void as against public policy. Existing law provides that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2018, for the lease of a dog or cat that provides for or offers the option of transferring ownership of the dog or cat at the end of the lease term is void as against public policy. This bill would provide that a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2025, to transfer ownership of a dog or cat that is offered, negotiated, brokered, or otherwise arranged by a broker and where the buyer is located in California is void as against public policy if specified conditions are met, including that the contract requires a nonrefundable deposit. The bill would require a contract entered into on or after January 1, 2025, between a broker and a buyer who is located in California to include specified information, including that the broker is required to disclose the original source of the dog or cat involved in the contract. The bill would authorize any court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin a person who offers a contract that contains a term that violates the above-described provisions. The bill would authorize a buyer harmed by a violation to bring a civil action pursuant to that provision against any person in violation of the above-described provisions, and would entitle a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The bill would require, if money has been exchanged pursuant to a contract that is void pursuant to these provisions, the seller to refund the money to the buyer within 30 days of receiving notice that the contract is void. The bill would specify that nothing in its provisions are to be construed to limit a contract for the transfer of ownership of an animal trained as a service animal or police dog, and would define various terms for these purposes.