I am trying to find a template or copy of a bill of sale that has a clause that states the said horse is not on any medications and if drug screen is run within ____ days and a positive result is found _____________ will happen .
I know this is vague, but basically the long and the short is that I have a client that has a deposit down on a horse. PPE is being arranged and I asked the seller for a bill of sale. I was presented with a very basic _________ seller is selling ____________ horse to ___________ buyer for $_________ with signature and date. Obviously I am not ok with that, so I am drawing up my own contract. My client has been burned in the past with a horse that we believe was drugged, so they are obviously a little paranoid about protecting themselves. We are going to have the vet draw blood and store.
Anyone have wording they would be willing to share with me?
Also, the vet that we are using (this is an out of state sale, so we are not personally familiar with the vet, however they were recommended by our vet) said they can store blood for 30 days, but most other vets I know can store for 90-120 days. What’s the norm? Does 30 days sound short to you all?
If the buyer is that worried about the the horse being drugged prior to sale, then I think she needs to actually commit to submitting the bloodwork ASAP and making the sale contingent on (specific) results. As a seller, I would never agree some test that may or may not happen at the buyer discretion that could potentially complicate the sale for 30 days much less 3 months or half a year. And in which the horse is out of my custody and new owner doing who knows what with its care and training for that entire time. The onus is on the buyer to test it immediately and make actual sale contingent on results prior to the horse chaining hands. Do the testing now or don’t. Period.
I agree with @freshman. Having a clause included in a contract that allows the horse to be returned in 30 days is not common in the US. Draw the blood. Run the tests. Have the contract state the sale is contingent on satisfactory results from the drug screen as well as the PPE.
If the client doesn’t feel comfortable with that approach, perhaps a horse that can be leased with an option to buy is a better alternative.
When drawing a good, solid contract, remember there are two parties at least to consider.
Any contract can be valid, but if the contract signed is ever contested, if it is considerate of all parties signing it will have way more weight than if someone was getting the best of others thru that contract.
When preparing a bill of sale, it has to be fair to all involves, buyers and sellers, try for that.
We had some buyers taking advantage when returning a horse as much as sellers being deceptive about the horse they sold.
One young lady trainer bought a yearling filly from us she was going to raise and train and run.
We always guarantee our horses verbally and rarely had to take one back for any reason in many decades.
This is one we did, almost a year later, when filly was ready to be started under saddle, she returned said filly “because her new BF didn’t like her and you said you take her back if it didn’t work”.
We took filly back, for the filly’s sake and made a note never to sell to that trainer again.
Contracts are so dependent on where you are signing it.
Is best to have an attorney right there where it will be executed advising you on this, to be sure it will do what you intend and comply with the laws where you are.
Thank you all for your responses. A lot to consider, however I have to say that I am quite surprised at the responses. I have been told by numerous vets and have read numerous threads (here on COTH and other forums) that it is normal to draw blood at PPE and hold for x period of time in case there is suspicion of the horse being drugged. I am surprised to hear that you all don’t seem to think that appropriate. As a seller why won’t you guarantee a horse to be drug free up to the time the horse is in your possession (and the blood drawn)? This horse isn’t on trial and hasn’t left the possession of the seller (she’s actually a seller’s agent, acting in behalf of the owner). So if the blood is drawn at the PPE (while horse is still in her possession) and then horse is transported to our facility and starts to act like a lunatic, so we test the blood on day 20 and it comes back positive for a tranquilizer, you are saying we should have no recourse? That seems incredibly unfair. It also seems incredibly unfair that a buyer should have to run a $400 test on top fo a $500 (base PPE, doesn’t include xrays) to vet a horse that costs less then $5000.
Please keep bringing the input and feedback. I am open to hearing it all, however I asked that you also consider the buyers perspective (even from a buyer that hasn’t been burned in the past, you want to be protected).
I think the point being made is not that the testing later is bad but that no one wants a horse back after you (general) have done things to it for 20 days that might affect the horse (training/injury/etc) long term.
There is nothing wrong with asking the seller if they will agree to a return clause contingent on the blood testing for specific things for a certain time. @freshman is just explaining why a seller, even a very honest seller, might not agree to it.
The Bill of Sale is the functional “title” for a horse. It should be kept plain and simple and not cluttered up with contingencies.
The Bill of Sale comes AFTER the Contract for Purchase. In that document you put all of your terms and conditions. You don’t execute the Bill of Sale until AFTER all those terms and conditions have been fulfilled.
If you have concerns about a horse being drugged then pull the blood, test it, and if it’s clean go ahead. If it’s not then don’t. I understand that there can “dead times” in a transaction where an unscrupulous buyer or seller can engage in “bad behavior.” Sadly, there is no way to totally protect both parties from each other during every minute of the transaction. If you’re dealing with a reputable seller then the odds of a clean deal are good. If you dealing with a shady seller the odds of dirty deal go up. Caveat Emptor is still the bed-rock principle of buying (or selling) a horse. All the rest (PPE, blood work, trainer evaluation, etc.) are designed to be part of the “caveat” part of the phrase.
The KISS Principle is a good one upon which to base your contract drafting. The more words you use the more words a deceitful person has to play with.*
There is no way you can cover all contingencies in any deal as the shady dealer makes their living creating odd contingencies.
Good luck in your program.
G.
*Oh, and I understand fully the irony of a lawyer saying not to use too many words. But there is a relevant legal principle in play, here. Inclusio unius (est) exclusio alterius. Latin legal maxim that makes the point that where a statute, contract or other legal document includes a list of items falling into a category, the inclusion of certain items on that list should be presumed to mean that any excluded items are intentionally outside the definition. This is just another argument for the KISS Principle.
My purchase contract is my Bill of Sale. I deal with the issue of drugging differently. I will state in writing ANY medications (prescribed or OTC) the horse has been given in the last 60 days. I warrant the horse has received nothing else. I also release all vet records. Blood is drawn at the PPE and if some drug other than what I have stated turns up, the horse comes back and the sales price refunded. I never have had a horse returned.
I don’t do trials, nor do I expect a buyer to pay for a full drug screen along with the PPE. Generally speaking, an issue related to a drugged horse will show itself within a relatively short period of time.
Back at the dawn of time, my mother bought a pony for my younger sister. That pony was fine for about 3 days and then the pony could not steer and only went backwards. My mother called the horse dealer and miraculously they came back and swapped the first pony with another one. The replacement pony was fine. Of course he was stolen, but that is another story for another time.
Terrible idea. Run the blood before you complete the sale. This is how I’ve done it for the last 10 years, and I don’t know anyone who recommends otherwise.
Someone who is unethical enough to drug a horse for sale, especially when they know you intend to pull blood, is highly unlikely to just honor the agreement and return your money when you find it. Client will end up out a lot more than the cost of the test when they have to hire lawyers and file suit to return the horse and enforce the bill of sale.
I think you’re being unfair to the seller. Basically, you’re asking the seller to trust you - trust that nothing is going to happen to the horse after you take possession; trust that the blood drawn will be collected, handled, and stored properly; trust that the drug screen will be properly conducted by a reputable lab; trust that you won’t attempt to manipulate the drug screen to justify returning the horse because you broke it after you took it home. And you’re asking for all that trust from the seller while at the same time, you’re not willing to trust the seller.
You don’t see this as inequitable because you know you’re trustworthy. But it’s silly to think that someone who doesn’t know you, and who knows that some buyers can be just as dishonest as some sellers, is gong to trust you when, by the nature of your proposed contract, you have clearly indicated that you don’t trust them.
If your client has a particular fear of a horse being drugged, then she is just going to have to bite the bullet and pay for a pre-purchase drug screen.
Someone who is unethical enough to drug a horse for sale, especially when they know you intend to pull blood, is highly unlikely to just honor the agreement and return your money when you find it. Client will end up out a lot more than the cost of the test when they have to hire lawyers and file suit to return the horse and enforce the bill of sale.
What you want here is a purchase agreement. Usually in those there is a clause that the seller represents and warrants certain things about the horse’s health and condition. If horse is drugged, that can be cause for a fraud claim or voiding the contract, and yes it is common for vets to just hold blood for 3 or 6 months in case suspicions arise. But this is done where the buyer trusts the seller and buyer doesn’t want to spend another $300 or whatever on this bloodwork. In some countries, there would be a right of return within those 6 months regardless of what the contract says. It’s possible to get the same result in the US but not so automatic. I have done the blood store thing. I would not do it if it’s only stored for 30 days. If that was my only option, I would just test it.
If the buyer has any hesitations due to their past experience, the bloodwork should be part of the PPE condition and no bill of sale is signed or money sent until that is clean. You do not hold the blood in that situation. Now if you are worried that the seller will sell horse out from under you, you might go ahead and sign a purchase agreement that is conditioned upon clean PPE, including blood, for finalizing sale and payment. There is no ____ that would happen if positive result, sale is incomplete. Since a deposit is already on the horse, I don’t think 2 contracts are necessary. It’s not uncommon for people to test blood in the PPE so that should not be a weird ask to wait a few days for bloodwork. I mean, I usually pull my own coggins and stuff anyway, and you might need that to be in the buyer’s name to ship the horse to a new state depending on local health certificate rules.
The other thing to consider, albeit unlikely, is what happens if you draw & store blood, them something happens to that stored sample?
I am in the middle of a dispute with with my out of state vet & trainer over the handling of material that I paid for, yet somehow got “ruined”. In my case, it can be re-done, but I don’t think I should have to spend the several thousand dollars to have it made again.
You can never re-draw the blood from the time before you purchased the horse. Were it me, I’d probably tell the seller I was going to run a blood panel, and make my decisions based on the seller’s attitude and response. You can either a) draw and store, b) draw and test, or c) opt to not draw at all.
FWIW, I bought a horse that I am fairly sure was drugged - he was a nightmare for the first year, but turned out to be the best horse I ever owned in the long run.
On one hand: yes, buyers should be able to protect themselves. Falsely representing something in a sale (especially via chemical manipulation) is fraudulent.
On the other hand: buyers should not have carte blanche to have a get out of jail free card/expect to get a complete return on their money (and other expenses that they’ve sunk into a horse that they feel may have been misrepresented, via drugging, in this circumstance). Where would it stop? “I want the purchase price reimbursed, I also want you to reimburse me for the training, lessons, veterinary, farrier, and boarding bills that I’ve paid on this misrepresented horse.” That doesn’t even begin to take into account that the horse a seller is seeking to return may not be in the same condition (physically or in training) as the horse that left. One trim job is all it takes for a bad farrier to wreck feet. One truly accidental slip on ice can lame a horse. One kick from a new turnout buddy trying to settle herd dynamics.
I would never sell a horse to someone who writes in a contract “we’re holding onto blood for 120 days and want to be able to test that sample anytime within that quarter-of-a-year timeframe and then return the horse/get reimbursed if results come up with something.” If your buyer is this leery of a drugging issue, you need to do that in the PPE. Not a nebulous future event maybe-yes-maybe-no thing.
Agree with the above; a conditional sale-pending-results contract (seller can disclose any medications that the horse may test for ahead of time, any “extras” found in a drug test mean the horse has failed the test) would be my recommendation for a way forward that protects both the buyer and the seller.
Incidentally, I don’t think a seller is outrageous or unfair if they aren’t willing to go forward with a sale where a contract indicates buyer can hold onto blood samples/test anytime within a timeframe and then, presumably, not just return horse but get money back as well. For some people who don’t have large discretionary sums, that would almost necessitate taking the sale, putting the money in escrow and not being able to touch it until the time limit of the possible blood test has lapsed, before they can do anything with it. Many equine professionals would not be able to function with this kind of money management. They sell and immediately need to turn around and put that money elsewhere into their business (and while not professionals, sometimes sales are necessitated for financial reasons which would make this concept similarly impossible to adhere to).
There is nothing wrong with drawing blood and storing it. However, there is a difference between drawing blood, storing it AND having a clause in the contract such as you are suggesting.
Honest sellers, like dishonest sellers want certainty a sale is complete once the money changes hands. No one wants the uncertainty of a contingency. When the buyer wants unusual/uncommon contingencies red flags pop up in the sellers mind. Contingencies (IMO) are often better suited for a lease, or a trial period if available.
You would have recourse. You could sue for fraud. Keep in mind, even if you put a clause in your contract such as the one you are suggesting, if the seller is unscrupulous enough to lie about tranquilizing a horse, they aren’t likely to take the horse back just because that’s what the contract says. In all likelihood, you’ll have to take the seller to court to enforce the contract. In either case, I doubt it would be worth it for a 5K horse.
The buyer doesn’t “have” to run a $400 blood test. Nor do they have to spend 2K on radiographs and ultrasounds. It all boils down to what each individual buyer feels comfortable with. Drug screens, radiographs, and other images can provide a buyer with information that can help inform their decision. The buyer has to decide what is valuable to them.
This is NOT a perfect analogy, but maybe it will be somewhat useful. Imagine you are selling your home. A potential buyer wants a professional to come in and take samples from the basement and have them stored for three months. The buyer wants it written into the contract that if he tests the basement samples in the next 90 days and they come back positive for black mold, he will receive a full refund and you will take the house back. Unless you are desperate, you aren’t likely to agree to those terms.
There are many forms of “protection” or safeguards buyers can secure while horse shopping, but many aren’t free.
One safeguard is for the buyer to engage the services of a reputable trainer. Another safeguard is to work only with reputable sellers. Another safeguard is the PPE, which can be “bare bones” or a bit more extensive.
The buyer has to decide which or how many “investments” she needs, to make an informed purchase decision. If the buyer is worried about buying a horse that might have been drugged, she should ask herself what is more valuable; the certainty of a drug test or $400. It really is a personal decision.
I had bloods drawn (in Fl and stored). Bloods were drawn at the PPE and stored by Palm Beach Equine, which was standard for them as I recall. The PPE was a few weeks after I tried him. Horse was a different animal after he arrived. I had the bloods run within the 30 days. They were clean. It remains a puzzle what happened to the horse to make him so different. I cannot prove that he wasn’t drugged when I tried him but a friend had seen this horse hacking around for a long time, and knew the trainer, so perhaps, as has been suggested to me, when we changed how he was ridden to be less compressed at the upper neck, he felt freed and able to express himself. So we are working through retraining, with promising results (I, as an ammy, am not doing this…). Sorry to go off on a tangent, but yes, it is common to draw the bloods and test later, but I wanted to point out that you are testing for drugs only within the time that the drugs are detectable, and in this case above, he could have been drugged and I’d never have known it. But in this case, I do not believe it was done. Note that had the bloods been positive, my only recourse would have been to sue. My contract only said that the seller warrants that the horse had not received any medication, but not that I could return the horse.
Thanks for posting this - I, like the OP, was confused by the many responses saying that her plan to test, hold, and write in a protection was unreasonable. I feel like I’ve read hundreds of recommendations to do just that in other PPE threads. Upon further thought and reading the clarifications here, though, I was starting to suspect that holding and testing blood later is not done in order to reverse a sale, but rather to clear up suspicion, and if the situation warrants, sue the seller for misrepresentation.
It’s also why you DON’T put this stuff in a Bill of Sale; you put it in the Sales Contract that accompanies the Bill of Sale.
If it were me and I were so worried about the integrity of the seller (or buyer) that I was going to have draw multiple blood samples that had to be held for months I’d tell the seller “adios, amego/a” and look for another horse. If I want to buy (or sell) a horse I want to buy (or sell) a horse, not a lawsuit.
Following the KISS Principle is always a good idea.
But there is a relevant legal principle in play, here. 