# Who's horse is it?



## Prinella (Jul 12, 2011)

In my eyes she said she would charge B for board implying B was boarding with A.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Prinella (Jul 12, 2011)

But saying so I have no legal knowledge
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Clayton Taffy (May 24, 2011)

I think B should count her blessings that A didn't want back training and boarding fees, and vet & burying fees also. That said I am assuming there was no outright negligence on the part of A as to why H died. If a person dies at the hospital you still get billed for medical bills, same goes with animals at the vet. I think B should save the lawyer fees for her new ALREADY BROKE horse.


----------



## Mike_User (Oct 24, 2006)

> A offers to buy him, but not for a few months, wants to return him in the interum.
> B says A might as well keep him there, if he is only going to go back in a few months.
> A reluctantly agrees, says she won't charge B board during those next few months.


This part is key. It sounds like A had explicitly told B that that A was not interested in purchasing H at that point in time, but instead in a few months from then. That B told A to keep H on A's property in the meantime (presumably for B's own convenience) in anticipation of A's _eventual _purchase of H does not change the fact that B continued to own H until their future contract was executed. Since that never happened before H died, B should not be able to recover the sale price from A.

At the same time, A should not be able to recover the cost of board from B as of the time A agreed to board H free of charge in anticipation of taking ownership of H.

It seems neither A nor B considered the possibility that H would suffer an injury that would require euthanization before the sale took place. As a result, B bore the risk that something would happen to H before H was actually sold, and A bore the risk that she was providing free board to a horse that might not ultimately become hers. Had H not become A's as a result of B's changing her mind, though, A would arguably have had a case against B for unjust enrichment (the value of the benefit conferred).

Of course, an alternative interpretation of the facts is that A and B had effectively executed a contract for future performance. Depending on the details A and B discussed, such as a price, a specific date that H would become A's, etc., one could argue that the details of their agreement were sufficiently in place such that their understanding constituted a contract, and B had effectively performed their part by leaving H in A's custody. This would likely be the theory of B's lawsuit. However, this interpretation would seem to conflict with both A's explicitly expressing that she did not want to buy H at that time, but in a few months, and A agreeing only reluctantly to keep H until the time of sale, so I can't imagine it would be afforded much weight.

Of course, the above does not constitute legal advice.


----------



## Mike_User (Oct 24, 2006)

I forgot to add that proving that all of the above happened the way it did is another matter, entirely. B may have a stronger case if A has no proof that A actually said she did not want to buy H now but in the future, that A only reluctantly agreed to provide H with free board until a future sale, etc.

The analysis also excludes any action for negligence like Taffy Clayton mentioned.


----------



## Skipsfirstspike (Mar 22, 2010)

What about the initial training and boarding services that A provided before H died? This bill has not been paid. Is it unreasonable for A to expect to collect?


----------



## usandpets (Jan 1, 2011)

To me, until money exchanges hands, the horse belongs to the original owner. If the original owner decides not to pay for services, the barn owner/trainer can claim a lien on property (the horse) to cover costs lost. Since the horse was still owned by the original owner, in my eyes, she cannot sue for the horse, unless she can prove negligence on the BO's part for the horse getting injured. Not true legal advice, just my opinion and maybe common sense.


----------



## Mike_User (Oct 24, 2006)

Skipsfirstspike said:


> What about the initial training and boarding services that A provided before H died? This bill has not been paid. Is it unreasonable for A to expect to collect?


I don't see any reason why B would not still owe A for any services rendered for which there was an agreed upon fee. That H has passed on does not change the fact that A provided said services for an agreed upon fee. This may be clearer in a different context: If an auto shop services your car and you total your car the next week, you still owe the auto shop for their work even if the car is gone (assuming the work was not defective).

That is, of course, unless B has proof that A absolved B of B's debts. Even if that were the case, A could argue that any such absolution was contingent upon A taking ownership of H in the future, which never came to pass.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

Here is the exact reason I will never let a horse I am selling go out on a trail period. Someone is buying the horse and wants to try it out. You let it go, it gets killed, even accidentely and I can guarantee the "buyer" forgets about buying the horse.
This scenerio above sounds alot like a he said/she said thing. without paper proof to back up either story, I would assume it will be a dead in the water court case, if it goes that far. I think its too late for A to ask for training/boarding money and B, in my opinion still owned horse, no matter where it was.


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

No money (or other agreed-upon benefits) changing hands = no contract. A did not buy the horse.


----------



## MySerenity (Jul 18, 2011)

My gut says that B owes A for training and board and that's the end of that. No contract or written agreement? Sucks for both of them, but I definitely don't think B should waste money on a lawyer.


----------



## churumbeque (Dec 20, 2009)

Skipsfirstspike said:


> What about the initial training and boarding services that A provided before H died? This bill has not been paid. Is it unreasonable for A to expect to collect?


A should have collected the 1st day. She took a risk and it didn't pay off. It was her own negligence. I would not pay for training after a horse died at the trainers but I have always paid for training up front


----------



## WhosJackedUp (Jul 22, 2011)

that sounds like a mess :/ I think horse people get to legal. Its sad the horse died...


----------

