[QUOTE=Capall;8545203]
Menus must be written in crayola.
And to go even further back… corns must be served.[/QUOTE]
I guess they can be the side to the baby ribs…
crimsonsky:
I believe it was stated several pages back that OP and her mother run a golf cart shuttle service at PBIEC. Presumably, it operates next to the VIP parking lot.
[QUOTE=Anne FS;8544789]
Thanks, findeight.
vxf111, I agree with most of the things you post, and I understand how posts on here are frustrating for you to read, but I think that you’re confusing opinions people state as to them dogmatically presenting them as legal advice.[/QUOTE]
I don’t see how many of this posts that conclude X owns the pony due to A, B, C facts are not opinions on contract law. Uninformed lay ones, true, but conclusory statements about the application of contract law nonetheless.
The poster who said “well if there’s fraud, the seller has a counterclaim” perfectly encapsulates to me how clearly 99% of the lay posters on this thread don’t understand how contract law works. Fraud in the inducement is about contract formation.
Apparently, the IRL characters of OP and her mom are working at WEF either with the golf cart concession (still Devers?) or VIP parking shuttle service provided by the show.
We could set up the Open Trailer bar right next to that parking lot and sit back to watch.
A question, but not warranting its own post, if you negotiate a lower price for a horse for a disadvantaged whomever, are you legally obligated to forward the horse on to the disadvantaged whomever??
However, if disadvantaged whomever bails or doesn’t want the horse, how long should you take to resell the horse, flip it, whatever, and still be “legal.”
Is there a timeline you need to adhere? I try to get the lowest price although generally I am known to resell but don’t think I’ve ever used the disadvantaged whomever angle, been doing this decades and nothing springs to mind and no complaints.
So, you negotiate a lower price for a disadvantaged whomever, they can’t or don’t want horse…what do you do? Go back and give more money to the original seller??
If we took every buyer that lied when buying a horse to court, we would never see the light of day again.
“I am a great rider, I have ridden for years!” – they went on two trail rides.
“I am going to show this horse and make you famous, seller!” – don’t have the money to show anything.
“I checked out the trailer before I left!” – brakes don’t and never did work.
Lawyers, feel free to opine here. Good question.
[QUOTE=WildandWickedWarmbloods;8544864]
…
What part of contract law do the Cothers not know? If there is fraud in obtaining a contract for a sale of a horse, then the contract is null and void. so if the seller has proof that the OP said to her, in email or text, that the reason for wanting to pay less for said New Pony (as opposed to The Pony from the older thread) then the lower price was obtained by FRAUD, so the contract is void. And the seller could get her attorney’s fees if the OP did lie in order to lower the price. Doesn’t matter one bit that the money was wired/paid to the seller if their was fraud on the part of the buyer. So the OP and her mother-in-law or whomever the other woman is, if there are two women and it’s not just another AKA of the OP, better show up in court with a “disadvantaged” child. Well, I guess based on what we’ve learned about the OP and her old Coth name, any kid she or a relative has now might be considered “disadvantaged” in some way because of all the previous lawsuits.
…[/QUOTE]
Only a few posters who are really honest to god bona fide contract-law attorneys on COTH know much of anything about contract law, apparently … but see my own answer below, from a non-attorney. :winkgrin:
These points may be true in general regarding contract law, but there is no way to read some stuff on the internet and know that those are the same facts that will go into the actual legal dispute, or what the outcome will be, or what an individual judge would do if it got that far. 
Non-attorney here, but how I see it …
I think the point others are making is that not having actually read the emails, and relying only on each party’s posted memory and interpretation for verbal statements, there’s no way to know which way this situation would go legally.
Personally I wouldn’t pin my hopes on an argument over intent vs interpretation; what was said or written vs what was heard/read. A clever argument could even back up what was posted here, that the pony was for the disadvantaged child of a mom of limited means. In writing or only verbally, maybe someone left out a word while referring to the disadvantaged grown child of a mom of limited means.
[I’ve just spent the last month being (benignly) referred to as ‘one of the grown children of ___’ in conversation and documents. No liquor-serving establishment has asked to card any of these ‘grown children’ in years and years. ]
What is certain is what is in writing and not subject to individual interpretation of what it meant, and that’s the bill of sale. That’s the stronger position.
Not to mention that some of the assertions about this situation posted on this-here COTH-internet were posted by folks who were never party to this sale. 
If the Buyer, I’d be looking for a different new pony. While sober.
If the Seller … gosh, I wonder where that pony is right now?
[QUOTE=findeight;8544958]I propose we open up a cyber tavern called the Blue Saddle Inn. That we we can congregate over a few kegs or boxes with popcorn and guacamole to discuss the more creative train wrecks.
It can stay open after hours too, that’s when the really good stuff hits the fan and most houseguest get active.[/QUOTE]
[ … and the crayon menu which I missed quoting … ]
These are like the best ideas anyone has come up with this year !!! 
And serve Stolen Pony Shots …
[QUOTE=findeight;8544958]
I propose we open up a cyber tavern called the Blue Saddle Inn. That we we can congregate over a few kegs or boxes with popcorn and guacamole to discuss the more creative train wrecks.
It can stay open after hours too, that’s when the really good stuff hits the fan and most houseguest get active.[/QUOTE]
Great!
[QUOTE=Kwill;8545325]
If we took every buyer that lied when buying a horse to court, we would never see the light of day again.
“I am a great rider, I have ridden for years!” – they went on two trail rides.
“I am going to show this horse and make you famous, seller!” – don’t have the money to show anything.
“I checked out the trailer before I left!” – brakes don’t and never did work.
Lawyers, feel free to opine here. Good question.[/QUOTE]
“Oh I have a lot of riding experience.” “Really, how long have you ridden?” “It was all day.”
“Has the talent to go to higher levels.” any horse classifieds
“This green 3 yo will be my next Olympic horse!” any pro trainer in any Olympic discipline …
“I am a great rider, I have ridden for years!” – they went on two trail rides.
But, you know, those two rides were years apart.
I forgot about something and was just reminded.
The menus and drink lists will most certainly be in crayon. And how about we make the special “Chicken in the Oven”?
MENU
COTH Open Trailer Restaurant and Bar
Please seat yourself on one of our comfortable blue saddle chairs. We have dressage saddles for those of a more refined drinking pace, eventing saddles for those who want to get there in a hurry and roper saddles for those who need to stay “in the saddle” no matter how much they drink.
Our house wine comes straight from the vat in the basement and is served in small or water bucket size.
Guacamole comes in one size - huge - and is served in a generously proportioned feed tub. Over-salted chips on the side.
We will be adding dessert Peeps for the spring season.
PEEPS!!! I forgot…of course they will be offered as dessert. As a table centerpiece, how about a bottle of fly spray? With a little buzzer thing on it so nobody tries to sneak it out in their Aunt Ester’s purse.
Houseguests get in free.
[QUOTE=Wonders12;8541490]
Damn you Pocket Pony! I was willfully ignoring the references to a thread I had missed (ignored?). But thanks to you I had to track it down. Now I’m 34 pages in! :eek:
Buuuuuut that wasn’t actually the thread I was thinking of.[/QUOTE]
That might have been the crazy barn owner??? Poster was trying to get the &&^^ out of dodge??
There are probably 300 threads about crazy barn owners. Or more. I jest, but seriously, that doesn’t narrow it down much.
[QUOTE=findeight;8545494]
I forgot about something and was just reminded.
The menus and drink lists will most certainly be in crayon. And how about we make the special “Chicken in the Oven”?[/QUOTE]
I think the best way would be to serve it in a safe…
[QUOTE=Anne FS;8543669]Yes, but js’ comment was about disadvantaged children: why get them into this sport? I thought that was kind of cruel. There are plenty of kids with no money who are hard workers and have been helped tremendously by kind people who provided them the opportunities to learn about horses and to ride and yes, even to show. We know it turned out not to be this particular case, but to say ugh, why let poor kids in is just mean.
[QUOTE=js;8543768]Call it mean but I don’t like to see kids hearts broken when reality settles in that they cannot afford a sport that someone has gotten them excited and interested in. Neither is it fair to ask of the parents because you are putting them between their child’s dreams and mortgage payments, savings, saving for college, other siblings with ambitions etc.
Yes, kids can work for lessons, rides etc. but trying to show upper level hunter/jumpers (as the OP was saying this so called child was attempting) that is very expensive and few can afford to go to that level without a lot of money to invest at some point.
That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t suggest another equestrian discipline that might be a more financially viable option, like pony club, 4-H etc.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
As one of the disadvantaged kids, I’m sure glad that js and Haybert weren’t anywhere near my single mother with two kids working a minimum wage job. How arrogant and elitist is it to assume you know what is best for someone because of their economic status?
I absolutely had A circuit hunter/equitation aspirations. Not 4-H or Pony Club. Thankfully, no one tut-tutted me and said I should give up my dreams because they weren’t going to be fulfilled like the other girls in the barn. Nope, they rallied around and helped out in a multitude of ways (a trainer made lessons possible, owners made “leasing” possible, babysitting made a handful of A shows possible). Sure, I didn’t get to fulfill my dreams to the extent that I hoped…but I did get to learn to ride, show a very small bit, learn more than I ever could imagine, and surround myself with the horses that I was obsessed with. It may have taken me until I was 31 to buy my first horse and a few more years to trade up to A-Hunter quality (all have had potential…the current just more so) and I have never been able to show the way I would like, but why should that matter to someone on the internet?
I now do my best to pay it forward to other disadvantaged youth with the love of horses, but not the means. I will.not.quash the dreams of an 8 year old because it’s unlikely her family will ever be able to afford more than a weekly lesson. Maybe, just maybe, the love of horses will inspire her to far surpass the socioeconomic status of her parents and their parents before.
So, I guess what I’m trying to say is, while there may or may not really be a disadvantaged child in this scenario*, there is no reason be so elitist.
Kudos to Anne FS for recognizing value in the experience even if it’s a different experience from the majority.
*Not seems more likely with the OP’s odd ways of referring to the child vs. the client
1 Like
[QUOTE=findeight;8544958]
I propose we open up a cyber tavern called the Blue Saddle Inn. That we we can congregate over a few kegs or boxes with popcorn and guacamole to discuss the more creative train wrecks.
It can stay open after hours too, that’s when the really good stuff hits the fan and most houseguest get active.[/QUOTE]
… Aaaaaaand, on the jukebox in that tavern, there is that venerable olde traditional sea chanty as recorded by The Irish Rovers:
What Shall We Do With A Drunken Seller :lol:
Eta: I am not laughing at you, seller. I am poking fun at the accusation, which I am presuming is a false one.
As I understand at least 1 version of the facts (and of course we have no way of knowing what is true or can be proven)…
Horse is for sale. Seller S is contacted by A. A represents that she is an agent of buyer, B, and that the horse is to be used by B’s child as a show mount. Negotiations ensue and the price is bargained down by A on the basis that B cannot afford to pay more and her child is a very worthy individual. S decides she is okay with the price and the deal because, in part, she is okay with reducing the price so a worthy kid can have a pony and she likes the idea of the pony going to this type of home. Perhaps she googles B’s name or the kid’s name and nothing untoward comes up, so that makes her feel like it’s a good home.
As it turns out, A’s representations were untrue. There never was a kid. Didn’t exist at all. And B isn’t the real buyer. The real buyer is A. B had agreed to sign the paperwork, but A and B are related to each other and all along A was using her money to buy this pony to flip. S thought she was dealing with B, but really B was being a front for A. All along the plan was for A to buy the pony and flip it. Meanwhile, unlike the fictitious kid who has no baggage—googling A reveals lots of misdeeds and accusations. Had S known A was the buyer, she wouldn’t have sold to a home like that. Had S known A was the buyer and planned to flip, she wouldn’t have lowered the price.
Assuming A’s representations are material to S, this could give rise to fraud in the inducement. A was concealing important details like who the actual buyer was and what the plan for the pony was. If there was such fraud, that typically means S can void the contract if she chooses. She would have to return the money, but she can back out of the deal because she never truly agreed. The fact that it was reduced to writing is irrelevant. Material facts were concealed or misrepresented from her, so she never agreed to the actual deal. Now, if she nonetheless wanted to go through with the deal, she could hold the other party to it—the contract is voidable by her, not VOID.
This would not give rise to a counterclaim or a counter argument. If S can prove she was materially misled, there was no meeting of the minds and the contract did not exist. The contact is only enforceable if, after learning the fraud, S still wants to go through with it.
Objectively, the representations were NOT true and A knew them to be false when she was making them. The child didn’t exist. That was a lie. A wasn’t confused or exaggerating… she was lying about the very existence of the kid. B wasn’t the real buyer. B may have signed the papers but only as a strawman for A. That was also objectively known to A when she was making the representations to S.
Contrast this to subjective representations that amount to puffery. Telling a seller “I’m a great rider.” That’s a matter of opinion. Different minds can vary on what it means to be great. Telling a rider “I’m as great as George Morris” when you don’t know your diagonals may be unrealistic—but it’s not objectively false. Maybe you in your own foolishness think you are that good. Telling the seller “I am George Morris” when you’re not is objectively false.
Similarly, making equivocal representations about what you hope to do in the future “if I can get him made up, I’ll let a pony clubber ride him” is different than making a present misrepresentation of objective fact. A contracting party cannot reasonably hold the other party to a future ambiguous aspirational goal. So there is no “timeline,” that’s really the wrong question to ask. Unless there is some specific clause obligating performance by the buyer after the sale (which would be unusual) it’s not part of the contract. At the very least it’s not a fraudulent misrepresentation. Perhaps it might be breach if you don’t follow through but it doesn’t go to contract formation. If you promise to do something and you genuinely intend to do it at the time you promise, that’s not fraud.
[QUOTE=findeight;8544958]
I propose we open up a cyber tavern called the Blue Saddle Inn. That we we can congregate over a few kegs or boxes with popcorn and guacamole to discuss the more creative train wrecks.
It can stay open after hours too, that’s when the really good stuff hits the fan and most houseguest get active.[/QUOTE]
Let me guess…the popcorn will be low calorie from Triple Crown and the guacamole from Smart Pak packaged in neat little one serving cups.
