Equine ATTORNEYS! Seller refusing to release horse to shipper! UPDATE: Ransom refused

[WildandWickedWarmblo]

[QUOTE=Altered39;8541493]
If everyone really must know, we run a program of sorts at our barn alongside the regular training and sales, for less fortunate kids who ordinarily wouldn’t have access to the barn and show environment. Surely you all know how many great riders came from nothing, only because someone gave them a chance.

Shame on us for trying to make someone’s dream accessible.[/QUOTE]

OK this self righteous defense posture by OP makes me wonder about her business. Anyone know her down in Florida? Can someone on this board who is not a houseguest tell us if they know OP IRL?

Now I wonder if OP was claiming to buy the pony for a disadvantaged child but planning to sell the pony to a wealthy client who would be paying a lot of money for it? The plot thickens some more. Alias after Alias, or marriages after divorces?

[fordtraktor]

well if they are that disadvantaged maybe they shouldn’t be paying a lawyer to sue someone in another state over a luxury item.

[zakkandtoto]

[QUOTE=Altered39;8541414]
No. Does anyone read for comprehension anymore? This has passed the point of ridiculous.

Oh, and this “alias” bit. People get divorced. Families change. They use their nicknames on social media. Good lord.[/QUOTE]

Look, you thought it would be a good idea to air your crap on CoTH, as if it wouldn’t swing around and bite you in the ass.

Now you’re upset because the other side showed up and people have questions? You weren’t too upset when you were begging strangers for money, were you?

The OP is Kris Jenings aka Kristen Guilino. Kristen Guilino’s mother/mother in law is Donna Guilino aka: Donna Bolk, the person on the contract.

http://www.intelius.com/people/Kristen-Gulino/0e4xpsjzzwv

http://www.intelius.com/people/Donna-Gulino/0cex4h44j1p

No idea where this phantom pony-deprived kid comes in.

Seller: look into what JS said. Return the purchase price and call it a day.

[js]

Why get financially disadvantaged kids and parents into a sport they can’t possibly afford? How does that really help anyone.

[RubyTuesday]

[QUOTE=toady123;8541395]
It all sounds weird to me. You don’t typically get “didn’t have money to afford a(n) expensive pony” and “A+ show home” in the same sentence when selling. [[/QUOTE]

That was what I was thinking as well. If a person can’t afford the asking price of a pony that had to be negotiated down to $2200, how would they afford the show fees to get their “big talent” out there???

[Kwill]

I said all along to let it go – and at this point, no one seems to be lily white in this drama, but that’s typical of life, it’s messy.

Seller, I think you have to give them the pony if they don’t accept the refund, you signed the contract. The legal mess is probably not worth it. Next time, vet your buyers. Who sells a beloved horse to a sight unseen buyer 3 states away that doesn’t even come to try?

Buyer, ethically you should let this go. Seller doesn’t want you to have the pony and you could respect that and take your money back and move on. Whether or not she’s right about holding on to the pony, you could be a nice person and let her keep it, take your money back, and find another pony. However, in point of fact, you are in the right here since a contract was signed and the money was paid.

Sad story about a transaction gone bad. Sellers, you have the ability to control a sale, slow it down if you are unsure. Same with buyers.

[Kwill]

[QUOTE=RubyTuesday;8541548]
That was what I was thinking as well. If a person can’t afford the asking price of a pony that had to be negotiated down to $2200, how would they afford the show fees to get their “big talent” out there???[/QUOTE]

Sounded to me that the buyer was looking for a bargain, and found one. Whether or not they actually show the pony, or it sits in the barn, isn’t for us to say.

[RubyTuesday]

[QUOTE=Kwill;8541553]
Sounded to me that the buyer was looking for a bargain, and found one. Whether or not they actually show the pony, or it sits in the barn, isn’t for us to say.[/QUOTE]

No, I was merely thinking that, if I were the one selling, that would be what would occur to me.

[Hunterkid]

Everytime I look, this thread makes less and less sense to me !!

[RubyTuesday]

[QUOTE=Hunterkid;8541568]
Everytime I look, this thread makes less and less sense to me !![/QUOTE]

Give it another read-through and check back tomorrow morning.

[Kwill]

[QUOTE=RubyTuesday;8541566]
No, I was merely thinking that, if I were the one selling, that would be what would occur to me.[/QUOTE]

I see – yes, that makes sense. Need more coffee.

It seems that any time someone writes a long indignant post about a sale gone wrong that there’s always two sides to the story, and no one is clearly on the high ground in these situations. Pony thread springs to mind!

And as for making sense, it now makes perfect sense – buyer calls up seller, tells a story about taking a home grown/trained pony to the big time with a talented young rider that can’t afford a fancy pony already made, negotiates a “Show home” price, signs a contract. Seller than has second thoughts about some of the details while waiting for the pony to leave. Changes her mind, refuses to let pony get on the trailer, gives excuses about why the pony can’t leave that have nothing to do with the real reason, which is she no longer likes the buyer. Lawyers, enter stage right. COTH chorus commences.

[RubyTuesday]

[QUOTE=Kwill;8541584]
I see – yes, that makes sense. Need more coffee.

It seems that any time someone writes a long indignant post about a sale gone wrong that there’s always two sides to the story, and no one is clearly on the high ground in these situations. Pony thread springs to mind![/QUOTE]

Where is this big long thread about a pony, saddle and trailer, anyway? Sounding like required reading now!

[dacasodivine]

Short version: OP’s client (possible relative) bought a pony. Pony was bought and paid for and contract signed.

Just before the shippers were to arrive, seller says she is voiding the sale because shippers were late. OP has a cop arrive with shippers to pick up pony. Seller refuses to release pony saying she had to pay board and get the pony’s hooves trimmed. Cop says it’s a civil matter and they leave without pony.

OP offers to pay board and farrier fees. Seller refuses says sale is voided.

Seller or friend then posts scam reports about OP and client.

Seller then comes to COTH claiming she Googled OP, didn’t like what she found, and decided she didn’t want pony going there.

Seller also said all contact from start to finish was with the client so how did she know to Google OP?

Either way, there is a contract and payment. The pony no longer belongs to seller. If client accepts a refund, the cost of the shipper is also due.

[caffeinated]

Seller or friend then posts scam reports about OP and client.

The reports I’m seeing are from 2013 and involve a pony bought long distance without a vetting that had a head tilt and was blind in one eye. Not written recently by the seller, in any case…

[RubyTuesday]

[QUOTE=dacasodivine;8541632]
Short version: OP’s client (possible relative) bought a pony. Pony was bought and paid for and contract signed.

Just before the shippers were to arrive, seller says she is voiding the sale because shippers were late. OP has a cop arrive with shippers to pick up pony. Seller refuses to release pony saying she had to pay board and get the pony’s hooves trimmed. Cop says it’s a civil matter and they leave without pony.

OP offers to pay board and farrier fees. Seller refuses says sale is voided.

Seller or friend then posts scam reports about OP and client.

Seller then comes to COTH claiming she Googled OP, didn’t like what she found, and decided she didn’t want pony going there.

Seller also said all contact from start to finish was with the client so how did she know to Google OP?

Either way, there is a contract and payment. The pony no longer belongs to seller. If client accepts a refund, the cost of the shipper is also due.[/QUOTE]

I thought the seller had only had contact with the OP and NOT the actual buyer…?

[dacasodivine]

[QUOTE=RubyTuesday;8541652]
I thought the seller had only had contact with the OP and NOT the actual buyer…?[/QUOTE]

You are correct. I misread that bit.

[dacasodivine]

[QUOTE=caffeinated;8541649]
The reports I’m seeing are from 2013 and involve a pony bought long distance without a vetting that had a head tilt and was blind in one eye. Not written recently by the seller, in any case…[/QUOTE]

I double checked and it shows that post was made Feb. 15, 2016.

[WildandWickedWarmblo]

But if the OP committed fraud in inducing the seller to lower the price, and if the seller has text messages or emails to prove that, the contract would be found void by a judge.

Why is it that the other pony thread, the blue saddle thread, and this thread involve people from Florida? One the seller and now one the buyer? Doesn’t Florida have a law for horse sales like the automobile lemon law? Is this why people in Florida go out of state to buy or sell horses?

[Pocket_Pony]

[QUOTE=RubyTuesday;8541594]
Where is this big long thread about a pony, saddle and trailer, anyway? Sounding like required reading now! ;)[/QUOTE]

It is required reading. It is quite the trainwreck! What is it about horse deals in Florida?! Sheesh!

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?464445-Word-to-the-Wise-Lesson-Reminder-for-Everyone

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=dacasodivine;8541632]
Short version: OP’s client (possible relative) bought a pony. Pony was bought and paid for and contract signed.

Just before the shippers were to arrive, seller says she is voiding the sale because shippers were late. OP has a cop arrive with shippers to pick up pony. Seller refuses to release pony saying she had to pay board and get the pony’s hooves trimmed. Cop says it’s a civil matter and they leave without pony.

OP offers to pay board and farrier fees. Seller refuses says sale is voided.

Seller or friend then posts scam reports about OP and client.

Seller then comes to COTH claiming she Googled OP, didn’t like what she found, and decided she didn’t want pony going there.

Seller also said all contact from start to finish was with the client so how did she know to Google OP?

Either way, there is a contract and payment. The pony no longer belongs to seller. If client accepts a refund, the cost of the shipper is also due.[/QUOTE]

Except you’ve left out the facts during the bargaining stage where apparently (at least according to the seller) the buyer made material misrepresentations in order to get the seller to agree to the sale. It’s also possible that time was of the essence in this contract and that the buyer breached, but that seems less likely to me. Depends on the facts, and we don’t know all of them.

I don’t know where you are barred (or what jurisdiction this issue would be litigated in) but if the seller was fradulently induced, the contract may be voidable by her. So it is not as cut and dry as you’ve presented it here.

Whether the seller will be able to prove she was fradulently induced, I don’t know. But if she can, she may prevail in court. She will have to return the purchase price, but it sounds like she wants to do that already. The seller has at least a potential argument. Its viability will depend on the facts. As will the buyer’s likelihood of success.