# First right of refusal



## starlinestables

I'm just trying to get a consensus to see if I should push the issue or not.

I'll try to keep this short.

I sold a hunter/jumper pony July 8, 2010. 6 weeks later the daughter decided she didn't want to do english anymore and was losing interest in her and asked if I wanted to buy her back. At the time, I just bought a house and didn't have the cash laying around anymore. I usually wait a month before using the money just in case even though its not in my contract but again this was 6 weeks after the sale. I did list her for sale on my website, referred buyers her way, offered to come get her and help sell her if she paid for food and care while for sale. Never really heard from her after that.

My sale contract states:

a. The buyer agrees to pay the seller $$$$ cash upon delivery of said horse.
b. If the buyer chooses to sell the horse with in a year of signing this agreement, the buyer agrees to offer the original seller, my name, the first right of refusal to purchase the horse under this same agreement for the same purchase price regardless of value.
c. IF THE BUYER CHOOSES TO SELL THE HORSE BEYOND A YEAR OF SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, THE BUYER AGREES TO OFFER THE ORIGINAL SELLER, my name, THE FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL AT FAIR MARKET VALUE.


Fast forward to now, I have a few students looking for ponies and so I was browsing craigslist and happened to find my old pony for sale by the same owner. Of course I jumped at the chance.. I loved this pony! I contacted her.. She said that they may delay selling the pony until blah blah blah but said that she had an old broke appy gelding for sell if I was interested. I replied saying I hope she would reconsider.. explained why and told her a little about my prospective buyers and why the appy gelding wasn't what we were looking for (nicely). I also said that if my students weren't interested then I would most likely buy her back to use in our rapidly growing lesson program. Overall a very nice and pleasant email. She responded with "Don't ever email me or call me again". I sent her another email apologizing if I offended her and asked her how? no response. I just sent her a longer apology email trying to guess how I offended her and offering apologies and explanations for each possible scenario on how I might have offended her. The last thing I wanted to do was offend her in anyway and make sure we have good business dealings.

I have to admit I am kind of peeved. I really care that my horses are placed in good homes. I am hoping it all works out but I'm thinking about pushing the issue. According the the wording in point c, its been a year and I could still require first right of refusal. I know it may be a stretch if I took it to small claims. What do you think my odds are?


----------



## kevinshorses

I think you should have someone else try to buy him before you do anything else. That would be the easiest way. Then you could get an attorney to send a registered letter to get thier attention and see if that helps. If not then I would let it go and not spend any more time on it.


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians

I'd have a friend buy the horse for me and forget the whole thing. She sounds like a nutcase.


----------



## drafts4ever

I'd have a friend buy. Don't have them say where they would be boarding in case she's so crazy she'll refuse just because of your stables. If she requires a home check then hmmm, not sure what to do there but I'd have a friend buy the horse and you either fund it or reimburse.


----------



## Joe4d

You had first right of refusal and you refused, I dont see how you feel you have any claim to that horse.

Your own words,
"6 weeks later the daughter decided she didn't want to do english anymore and was losing interest in her and asked if I wanted to buy her back"

You had first right of refusal, you refused. 
This horse isnt yours and the current owner fulfilled their contractual obligations.


----------



## WickedNag

First right of refusal contracts do not stand up in any court anywhere according to my lawyer friend/ex judge. Do your research. You sold the horse, you have no right to any claim regardless of what a contract says. You gave up your rights to the horse when money exchanged hands. You did not lease the horse, you sold the horse, what gives you any right to have any say over the horse? Think of it in terms of buying a car... regardless that the horse is a living thing it is still property.

I also agree with Joe4d you already gave up your first right of refusal, which the owner never would have had to offer in the first place. But she honored her word and offered. 

Move on and if you think someone would be interested in purchasing the horse, send them her way. No reason to be shady about it.


----------



## iridehorses

I have to agree with everything said, Kevin and others say have a straw buyer pay for the horse if you still want him. Joe and Wicked said what I would have said, they fulfilled their end of the contract - if it could have even been enforced - and you refused.

They could be angry with you since they offered you the pony before and you turned them down, but now you want the pony. It doesn't matter - have someone else buy the horse for you.


----------



## sillyhorses

They offered you the first right of "buying" when they decided to go another direction a year ago. You turned them down. You have no legal leg to stand on with this situation (per your own words), and the woman can be as rude as she wants, unfortunately :/ Perhaps, as has been suggested, you can have your clients whom you feel she might be suitable for personally contact the seller and be sure to not mention your name in the process? Stinks that you were unable to buy her back when they first offered...


----------



## Speed Racer

First rights of refusal are unenforceable legally, and you could be required to pay the other person's court costs once you lose.

The owner_ already_ offered you the horse, and you couldn't take him back at that time. She's not obligated to offer him to you again, regardless of your little ploy in the form of your third bullet point in the contract.

If you think he's perfect for one of your students, have their parents contact this woman.


----------



## iridehorses

Speed Racer said:


> If you think he's perfect for one of your students, have their parents contact this woman.


But then she would lose out on the markup or commission.


----------



## WickedNag

iridehorses said:


> But then she would lose out on the markup or commission.


Oh that? I told her the same thing.. send them. Forgot this was a motive to some...


----------



## sillyhorses

iridehorses said:


> But then she would lose out on the markup or commission.


She's out anyway you look at it, once she refused the first offer, so if she really wants one of these students to have the horse, that is the only option.


----------



## 2BigReds

I think the fact that she offered the appy gelding instead and THEN got crazy once the pony was brought back up was weird. Besides, in this market I'd think it would be a good idea for the seller to just sell the pony back but if she'd rather get hung up about something stupid and keep paying the pony's feed and board until he sells then that's her problem.

I'm sorry all this is turning out to be so difficult but some people are just jerks. If one of your students is interested, just send them along, I think. Not too much else you can do.


----------



## franknbeans

iridehorses said:


> But then she would lose out on the markup or commission.


 
Yup. She sure would, and as evidenced in her previous threads, $$ is huge in the world of this particular OP. OP-if you care about your clients getting a good pony, you might want to forego this and just send them her way. THink of it as an investment in your future, as after all, I would think they would bring said pony back to your place for lessons and such.

Not only is everyone right-you WERE offered to purchase the horse. Long ago. You turned them down. Not only that, but really "right of first refusal" is not worth the paper it is written on, and really depends upon the goodness of their heart to contact you if they sell. 

Personally-if you contacted me to buy back a horse and told me you were going to use it in a lesson program-I would tell you to take a hike too.:evil: JMHO.


----------



## SarahAnn

I don't know how any of this works, as I have never sold a horse. All of my horses are mine forever... I'm just subbing because I find this debate fascinating.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kevinshorses

There's nothing immoral about selling a horse for a profit and there is no moral high ground in losing money. The OP said she had sent buyers to the owners when she couldn't buy the pony but they didn't work out.


----------



## franknbeans

Kevin-that was nearly a year ago, the way I read it. The pony is now advertised for sale, and she has other clients.


----------



## iridehorses

I hate to put it this way but a smart business person would have already figured this out instead of asking the opinions of strangers on the internet. She would already have purchased the pony through a friend and moved on. The question simply makes no sense since it looks like she wants to take legal action and is looking for back up.

The "strange" email telling her not to contact them again seems off and makes no sense from someone who wants to sell a pony - there seems to be something missing to make a seller react that way. It could be that the OP threatened to use the "contract" if they didn't sell her the pony back. I don't know ... there is more to this situation that we don't know.


----------



## Speed Racer

That's my take on it too, Iride. The OP is probably leaving out some information in order to make herself look like the innocent, injured party.


----------



## WickedNag

After reading about different stables and boarding issues ... sure makes me appreciate boarding at a private farm where my horses are the only ones there.


----------



## mls

starlinestables said:


> 6 weeks later the daughter decided she didn't want to do english anymore and was losing interest in her and asked if I wanted to buy her back. At the time, I just bought a house and didn't have the cash laying around anymore.REEMENT, THE BUYER AGREES TO OFFER THE ORIGINAL SELLER, my name, THE FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL AT FAIR MARKET VALUE.
> 
> I contacted her..
> 
> I replied saying
> 
> She responded with "Don't ever email me or call me again".
> 
> I sent her another email apologizing if I offended her and asked her how?
> 
> I just sent her a longer apology email trying to guess how I offended her
> 
> 
> What do you think my odds are?


You refused to buy the horse back.

Now you are harassing the seller?

The odds are good you will get a cease and desist order!


----------



## Alwaysbehind

iridehorses said:


> The "strange" email telling her not to contact them again seems off and makes no sense from someone who wants to sell a pony - there seems to be something missing to make a seller react that way. It could be that the OP threatened to use the "contract" if they didn't sell her the pony back. I don't know ... there is more to this situation that we don't know.


Or maybe the person has read some of the things the OP has posted on the internet about her boarders and barn and really does not want to deal with that.


----------



## Courtney

If this was me, I'd just ask someone else to buy the pony for me. Done deal.

When I sold my gelding, I did not ask for buybacks/first right of refusal/whatever. I did, however, ask the buyers to give me a heads up if he was ever sold so I could keep tabs on him. I don't need names or locations, but a quick update is always appreciated: "Hey! We decided to sell Levee and he is on his way to a brand new home as a gaming pony for a really sweet little girl."


----------



## sandy2u1

I have to agree....there is a chunk of this story missing. It doesn't make any sense.

I am surprised that anyone would buy a horse from you at all. I'd laugh in your face if you tried to sell me a horse at a fair price and then turned around and asked me to sign a contract about what YOUR rights to the horse still are. That is ridiculous in my opinion.


----------



## AlexS

Agreed Sandy, it's a wonder that she was able to sell the horse with the parts B and C of the contract.


----------



## hobbyhorse

I agree, once you sold the horse and money exchanged hands you have no claim to that horse.


----------



## iridehorses

Just imagine buying a horse for a decent price, putting a year of training, feed, conditioning, etc. into her, then, after deciding to sell her, be obligated to offer her back to the original owner for the same money; and being threaten with a contract clause if you don't. Not going to happen.


----------



## franknbeans

Iride-the contract did say something to the effect of "current market value"....which is pretty much a price open to debate. I am sure I think my horses are worth more than most buyers might......


----------



## iridehorses

Not during the first year:


> B. If the buyer chooses to sell the horse with in a year of signing this agreement, the buyer agrees to offer the original seller, my name, the first right of refusal to purchase the horse under this same agreement for the *same purchase price regardless of value*.



​


----------



## Skipsfirstspike

I highly doubt the OP would agree to her own terms of sale if the tables were turned and she were the buyer. No way would she hunt the original seller down and give the horse back for the same price. Nor should she... because the idea is ridiculous.
There is nothing wrong with asking for first refusal if the horse will be sold in the future, but that is a courtesy, not a right.


----------



## bsms

I see nothing wrong with having the first right of refusal in a contract. The buyer does not have to agree.

However, this from Wiki:

"Because an ROFR is a contract right, the holder's remedies for breach are typically limited to recovery of damages. In other words, if the owner sells the asset to a third party without offering the holder the opportunity to purchase it first, the holder can then sue the owner for damages but may have a difficult time obtaining a court order to stop or reverse the sale. However, in some cases the option becomes a property right that may be used to invalidate an improper sale."

Right of first refusal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is not stupid or immoral to put it into a contract. However, enforcing it will be a challenge. A very old lawyer once told me that, particularly in small claims, "The law is whatever the judge says it is that day in court." There is a lot of truth in that.

Also, unless the horse is very expensive, you would go to small claims and sue for damages, not for the horse. In Arizona, the state bar association has a deal where you call them, and they refer a lawyer who specializes in your area of concern. You pay the bar $35, and the price includes 30 minutes consult with the lawyer they refer. It is a GREAT deal for anyone with a legal question, since you get actual legal advice for $35.

If you hire the lawyer to write a letter, you will probably spend more than you could collect in damages for most horses. I did it for a $15,000 stock in my Mom's estate, and it cost me $700 for the lawyer to write several letters to an out-of-state outfit explaining AZ law and the consequences of ignoring it. For $15,000, it was worth it. But for the value of a disputed horse?


----------



## WickedNag

bsms said:


> I see nothing wrong with having the first right of refusal in a contract. The buyer does not have to agree.
> 
> However, this from Wiki:


Contact a good judge much better info than wiki. You can not sell something and retains rights to it and that includes first right of refusable. I have talked at length with this with my good friend Jack Wildes, lawyer/judge and now deceased. You can put it in a contract but if the other person doesn't care to honor it there is nothing you can do. At least that is the info from an attorney.


----------



## equiniphile

I would never agree to a contract with a first right of a refusal clause. There's just too many variables. The last thing I would want is for buyer to turn into a psychopath, neglect her horses, and have to sell the horse back to her :shock:. I just couldn't do it.

One email is enough for each reply. She tells you to get the h*ll out of her life, you send an apology note asking what you could have done wrong. If no reply, that is IT. Don't harrass her with apology emails. You got the point through the first time.

I'm sorry you missed out on buying this pony, but she is in no way obligated to sell him to you now. She offered him to you, you refused, and she fulfilled her contract.

ETA: Most rescues have a FROR clause; how does that work if the seller has no legal rights to the horse after the sale?


----------



## hobbyhorse

That's a interesting point that bsms brings to this thread. For example; To adopt from xxx rescue it's $250.00. The adopter signs a contract to take care of the horse and is not permitted to sell it in a 12 month period. If the adopter breaks a condition for not properly taking care of the horse or sells the horse within 12 months, the adopter can be fined for X amount of money or imprisonment no more than 1 year. Can this stand up in a court of law? There must be a difference between adopting and buying a horse!


----------



## kevinshorses

I would NEVER adopt a horse or sign a contract to offer the horse back to the previous owners. I don't want to enter into a year long relationship with someone over a horse.


----------



## Whisper22

There is no harm in including a FROR condition if the buyer is willing to sign. If nothing else, you sold a horse you really care about to someone who could very possibly give you that right when they are ready to sell, instead of someone who would most likely not inform you at all when the horse again changed hands. 

Who cares if this is was the OP chose to do. Even if it wouldn't hold up in court, it is still a good idea for someone who wants to keep track of the horse they are selling, given the buyer is an honest person.


----------



## kevinshorses

If you want to keep track of the horse then don't sell it. If you sell it then let go of it and move on.


----------



## bsms

I sold a mare last December with right of buy back. Our contract - handwritten & not reviewed by a lawyer, gave them the right to return Lilly for 60 days, no questions asked and I would buy her back for the sale price - a whopping $600. In theory, for as long as she lives, if they want to sell her, they are supposed to contact me (we live less than 2 miles apart) and offer to sell her back to me.

I consider this as no different than many rescues include in their contract.

Is it legally enforceable? Well, for a $600 horse, I doubt any money I could get in 'damages' would be worth filing in small claims court. It really was more of a statement of intent - a written agreement, clearly spelled out, saying this is what I want and that they agree to do so.

I see no harm in it. Sometimes horses don't work out at a new place. Lilly's only problem with me is that she and Trooper hated each other, and I was tired of keeping them separate. But she was moving into a corral with 2 other horses, and the new buyers had 60 days to decide if it was working. If not, I'd take her back. If she came up with some unknown to me disease, I'd take her back. Heck, my wife still refuses to drive past their place, because she cries when she sees Lilly with them - and Lilly is doing great there.

If they didn't want to agree to the contract, they didn't have to sign it or take her. My intent was simply that if, for example, they were killed in a car wreck and their kids wanted to sell the horses fast, I could keep Lilly from going to some dump of a place. And for them, they knew of our reputation (we use the same trainer and farrier), and it gave them confidence that if things didn't work out, they wouldn't be stuck with a horse that couldn't get along.

But for a $600 horse, it is not realistically a legally enforceable contract. If she was a $6 million horse, I'd bet a contract could be drawn up that WOULD be legally enforceable.


----------



## WickedNag

I agree bsms it is always nice if if someone contacts you and offers the horse back. BUT according to more than one attorney friend they have no right too expect it to be valid. IF money exchanged hands it is not enforceable. Since I refuse to buy a horse from a rescue I don't know what the difference in the contracts would be but I doubt they would be enforceable either. A local rescue near me quit adopting out their rescues do to the fact that after they rescued a couple and adopted them out, they ended up going to slaughter two years later. You can now sponsor one of the horses but no adoptions going on.


----------



## AlexS

Every animal I have ever owned with the exception of horses, has been from a rescue or shelter - the reason I don't have rescue horses is because of the conditions that they place on you. You cannot resell a horse, and have to give it back to them. Right..... so I take a horse needing training, put my time, my money into doing that make the horse worth 500% what I paid, and I cannot sell that horse on - oh no, that's not for me.


----------



## bsms

^^ But that is my point. It is totally up to you, as the buyer, to decide if you are willing to comply.

Just doing a quick search of the Internet indicates these sorts of contracts are legal and binding, depending on the exact wording. And yes, they usually involve amounts that would make suing in civil court reasonable.

http://www.blakes.com/english/view_disc.asp?ID=2515

Right of first refusal - Boston Real Estate - Boston.com

Right of First Refusal; What Does It Mean? | Vann & Sheridan, LLP

Right of first refusal: legal right and enforceability


----------



## hobbyhorse

I am pretty sure my contract I am currently under with the BLM is an enforceable one it clearly states "Any person who commits a prohibited act shall be subject to a fine of not more than $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for each." One of the prohibited acts states that I cannot sell him for a period of 12 months. If I can't care for him I can give him back, but I wouldn't get my moneyback. I am not gonna test it. It's a good thing I love my little mustang.


----------



## Whisper22

kevinshorses said:


> If you want to keep track of the horse then don't sell it. If you sell it then let go of it and move on.


Things are not always that simple in ones heart and/or situation. No one has any right to tell someone how much to care about an animal they need or want to sell.


----------



## AlexS

bsms said:


> ^^ But that is my point. It is totally up to you, as the buyer, to decide if you are willing to comply.http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/rightfirst-refusal-legal-rightenforceability/414350/


I'd imagine that it would have to be enforceable as every rescue I have ever heard of does it. I would imagine that in a cost saving effort, many will copy others - but at the same time, it must have been tested already. 

Back to the OP, she had the first refusal and refused, so she is doomed, unless she gets someone else to buy the horse - hopefully with less conditions than she uses when selling. Add to that she sent an email after being asked not to contact the seller again. 

I am so very thankful that America is so huge, and I don't have to consider the OPs barn to board my horse, as there is certainly enough money grabbing and drama to last a life time.


----------



## sandy2u1

I can certainly understand caring about a horse and making sure it goes to a good home and isn't sold into a bad situation. However, if you choose to sell your horse at fair market value, then that is a risk I feel that a person has to take. You can always lease a horse if you want ownership rights. 

The whole selling a horse for fair market value, but signing a contract giving the seller rights is a whole lot of BS if you ask me. I also find it very amusing that a person would sell a horse they care so much about, but wouldn't pay a couple of hundred bucks to a lawyer to draw them up a contract that was actually legal and would stand up in court. 

For those of you that think that kind of silly contract is ok when selling a horse then I have a question for you. If a buyer came along and said they would buy your horse except you had to give them a year to own the horse and if for any reason problems occurred then you'd buy the horse back, would you do ti? Of course you wouldn't. To me, it is the same thing.


----------



## proequine

*Mustang Adoptions- Note to BO*



hobbyhorse said:


> That's a interesting point that bsms brings to this thread. For example; To adopt from xxx rescue it's $250.00. The adopter signs a contract to take care of the horse and is not permitted to sell it in a 12 month period. If the adopter breaks a condition for not properly taking care of the horse or sells the horse within 12 months, the adopter can be fined for X amount of money or imprisonment no more than 1 year. Can this stand up in a court of law? There must be a difference between adopting and buying a horse!


If this relates to the Feds, mustang adoption, yes *they* can. 
I had a boarder that paid $2500 at mustang makeover, then he disappeared after a few months. The BLM contacted me for the inspection. I told them I had no idea where the boarder was, but I would like the papers so that I could sell the horse for back board lien. 

I was told I could not sell the horse, and *no*, my service board lien did not come* before* the Federal government...? They did offer to allow me to "adopt the horse for another year" and then sell him! Told them to take a flying leap and come get the horse, that I was tired of feeding him for free! 

Makes a BO think twice before taking a mustang to board... I wonder with hobbyhorse, if a "rescue" would also be before a "service lien?"


----------



## bsms

sandy2u1 said:


> ...For those of you that think that kind of silly contract is ok when selling a horse then I have a question for you. If a buyer came along and said they would buy your horse except you had to give them a year to own the horse and if for any reason problems occurred then you'd buy the horse back, would you do ti? Of course you wouldn't. To me, it is the same thing.


Actually, I did that. For 60 days, I agreed to buy her back at the selling price for any reason. In return, they agreed to give me first chance to buy her for the selling price if they ever wanted to sell her.

It was a mutually acceptable deal to us, or we would not have signed the contract. 

That is what I do not understand. No one is forcing anyone to buy. If they do not want to buy with a buy-back clause in the contract, they can go buy another horse. But if a buyer AGREES to the terms, then why should they not be held to their agreement?


----------



## Skipsfirstspike

60 days is very different than 365 days. 
You offering to take a horse back within 60 days shows that you are a man of honour who stands beside the quality of his horse, and that you are concerned enough about the horse and buyer enough that you want it to be a good match. 
Where it doesn't work is when I purchase from you a green broke, spooky 4 yr old, and over the course of a year turn him into a solid dependable show or ranch horse. Then due to unforseen circumstances (financial, health, etc) I have to sell him back to you for the same price I bought him? When he has perhaps doubled in value? I don't like the sounds of that..


----------



## bsms

Skipsfirstspike said:


> ...Then due to unforseen circumstances (financial, health, etc) I have to sell him back to you for the same price I bought him? When he has perhaps doubled in value? I don't like the sounds of that..


Then you would not be required to agree to the purchase. No one FORCES another to buy a horse from them with any form of buy-back clause. The buyer voluntarily enters into the contract, knowing the provisions and agreeing to them. Therefor, the buyer should keep their written word.

As a seller, I would have kept my end of the bargain. I see nothing wrong with expecting the buyer to do likewise.


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians

This whole topic has just made me re-inforce my determination to never touch a horse with strings. I did it once, it was a stallion with retained breedings and that was a HUGE P.I.T.A. and I swored I'd never do that again. Everyone I've ever heard of with those 'right of first refusal' contracts has been totally dissatisfied with them and it's ended up in some kind of 'fight' over the horse. Or the original seller doesn't get notified and given first right and finds out later the horse was sold and is mad. YAK YAK YAK! 

Bottom line, when I sell a horse I sell it. No retained breedings, no first refusals nothing. If the buyer then wants to contact me later and offer me the chance to buy back a well loved horse, that's awesome and I appreciate their consideration. But I absolutely won't require it.


----------



## Golden Horse

Dreamcatcher Arabians said:


> Bottom line, when I sell a horse I sell it. No retained breedings, no first refusals nothing. If the buyer then wants to contact me later and offer me the chance to buy back a well loved horse, that's awesome and I appreciate their consideration. But I absolutely won't require it.


Yup, sold is sold, if you want to retain then lease, don't sell.


----------



## WickedNag

Golden Horse said:


> Yup, sold is sold, if you want to retain then lease, don't sell.


I would like to like this more than once!


----------



## twh

This reminds me of an encounter I had with a person who wanted ROFR on a horse she was selling. 

I responded to an ad for a Paint. I forget how old, but in the single digits. She was advertised as a lesson or family horse and prospective broodmare.

The seller told me I would have to sign an "adoption contract", pay an "adoption fee" (something like $2500) and was trying give the impression she was a rescue. I answered asking "if you're a rescue, why are you promoting breeding?"

The seller replied that she is part of an "internationally known" horse rescue who "doesn't run its business like other rescues". 

I pressed the point about a rescue promoting breeding, and the seller finally exploded, threatening me with the police and telling me never to bother her or her family again or face the consequences!

That was a horse with strings attached to the point that I wonder if she ever got some sucker to fall for it. Worse thing is that the email she was using was the barn email of a respected show barn in the area. Go figure.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mike_User

Hi everyone,

I removed several disparaging posts from this thread commenting on the fact that the OP has not added another reply to it and seemingly challenging her to do so. 










While it's certainly nice when an OP addresses the replies they receive, such replies are never guaranteed, and we ask that you not belabor the fact that an OP has not replied to a thread and instead let any replies you or others have made in the thread stand on their own.



bsms said:


> Skipsfirstspike said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Then due to unforseen circumstances (financial, health, etc) I have to sell him back to you for the same price I bought him? When he has perhaps doubled in value? I don't like the sounds of that...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would not be required to agree to the purchase. No one FORCES another to buy a horse from them with any form of buy-back clause. The buyer voluntarily enters into the contract, knowing the provisions and agreeing to them. Therefor, the buyer should keep their written word.
> 
> As a seller, I would have kept my end of the bargain. I see nothing wrong with expecting the buyer to do likewise.
Click to expand...

As for the subject of the enforceability/validity of a right of first refusal clause in a contract, contracts solidify (and ideally reduce to writing) an agreement between parties, i.e., they represent the terms by which the parties have expressly agreed to enter into their deal. I'm with bsms in that I don't see why a _reasonable_ right of first refusal should be unenforceable if it was factored into a negotiation and agreed upon by both parties as part of a deal, especially where other terms of the deal may have been negotiated differently or the contract not executed at all in its absence.

Regardless,



Dreamcatcher Arabians said:


> Bottom line, when I sell a horse I sell it. No retained breedings, no first refusals nothing. If the buyer then wants to contact me later and offer me the chance to buy back a well loved horse, that's awesome and I appreciate their consideration. But I absolutely won't require it.


This sounds like a good way to avoid complication down the line to me. :thumbsup:


----------

