If a person makes a deal and then breaks it, that is sorry. If a person intentionally cheats another person, thats sorry. But if there wasn't a deal make where the kid was supposed to give the dogs back or trade back, if he didn't want the dogs, then I think that he is being judged too harshly.
I don't know the kid or the guy that traded the pups for dog food but I don't think that this is the same thing as the Claude Ard thing.
If I were to buy a pup for a nickel or for 1000 dollars. Either way, it belongs to me and no one would have the right to judge me for what ever I decided to do with the dog ..... unless there was a verbal agreement to give the original owner first option at the dogs if I decided I didn't want them.
Maybe I missed something but the way that I read the original post was that he traded 4 pups for a bag of dog food and there was no other agreements made. If the kid did the trade to turn around and sell the pups for a profit, that is unethical and wrong, but then again maybe he got home with the pups and they didn't like'em after all.
I wouldn't be too quick to judge without knowing both sides.
I think it all depends on what he intended to do with the pups in the first place and if hes lying about what/where the dogs are bred from...
If he picked up the pups just to turn around and sell them for a quick buck and lied about their breeding, he is no better than Claude Ard in my book... The only difference i see is that Claude tries to sell finished dogs, and these are just pups...
Now this is all based on "IF" thats whats going on, since its not 100% clear,
Thats pretty much what I was trying to say. I'd hate to hang a man on an "if". But you are right, I forgot about the part where he said that he lied about the breeding on the pups. That changes things.
