回複：Should've, could've... Don't panick!

One argument could be:
Since she didn't timely insist her rights to the kittens upon the first call for help, the buyer deemed the silence as consent that buyer has full rights to deal with the kittens, and the buyer already took actions fully relying on the deemed acquiescence (including posting ads online and found new owners of the kittens). This can be regarded as promissory estoppel even in the absence of written consent, and thus, the breeder lost her rights to the kittens

所有跟帖： 

• "since she---the breeder" -idoubtitit- ♀ (0 bytes) () 06/10/2013 postreply 10:48:08

• 這個我喜歡大家一定幫住把貼在這證據保存好。 -Tonemimi- ♀ (0 bytes) () 06/10/2013 postreply 11:09:07

• Very appreciated for your help with answer in English. -無緣不聚- ♀ (78 bytes) () 06/10/2013 postreply 11:16:15