[QUOTE=Brian;8545691]
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.[/QUOTE]
You must be new to train wrecks!
I’ll overlook the obvious slight. In fact, I’ll just chalk it up to inadvertent omission. :lol: But once again, the SADDLE SEAT discipline has been overlooked. In the spirit of fairness, I propose that I donate several massively oversized 22" poorly-designed Lane Fox saddles from the dark days before extended or adjustable stirrup bars. These saddles will be for the people who can knock back a few bourbons and still manage to ride a pancake of a saddle that puts them in a bona fide chair-seat.
[QUOTE=Alagirl;8545695]
You must be new to train wrecks![/QUOTE]
Just didn’t want to feel left out…
[QUOTE=Brian;8545707]
Just didn’t want to feel left out…[/QUOTE]
the stuff needs to be served in feed tub sizes…little pudding cups won’t do it.
and I think the wine will have to come from tanks vs boxes…much more ecological with this crowd!
Now that this train wreck is winding down and there doesn’t seem to be any more in sight I shall now go back and read the blue saddle, open trailer thread for enjoyment.
[QUOTE=vxf111;8545688]
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]
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. Very informative.
[QUOTE=RugBug;8545627]
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. [/QUOTE]
I have said this before. You may never know how you touch a life. You may never know that because you made your horse/horse life/barn life/time available to a child, that child may have learned something useful and powerful. How to pursue a dream. How to define a dream. That they ARE worthwhile. Something. Anything.
you. just. never. know.
and if you don’t inspire, impress, or do something that makes a child want more, you have still left the knowledge there are still good people in the world who will help you when you need it.
Kindness is never wasted.
1 Like
[QUOTE=Altermyne;8545767]
I have said this before. You may never know how you touch a life. You may never know that because you made your horse/horse life/barn life/time available to a child, that child may have learned something useful and powerful. How to pursue a dream. How to define a dream. That they ARE worthwhile. Something. Anything.
you. just. never. know.
and if you don’t inspire, impress, or do something that makes a child want more, you have still left the knowledge there are still good people in the world who will help you when you need it.
Kindness is never wasted.[/QUOTE]
I know plenty of ‘kids’ from the wrong side of the tracks, who became successful adults, due to the kindness of strangers who opened their barns to them, giving them saddle time.
Because the outside of a horse is good fr the inside of a person!
“Don’t give your son money. As far as you can afford it, give him horses. No one ever came to grief, except honourable grief, through riding horses. No hour of life is lost that is spent in the saddle. Young men have often been ruined through owning horses, or through backing horses, but never through riding them; unless of course they break their necks, which, taken at a gallop, is a very good death to die.”
OMG, it’s true, I forgot saddle seat and also side saddle! Side saddle is for those who wish to slip quietly to the floor after a sufficient amount of Chateau Le COTH.
I believe we should also have a mechanical horse called Train Wreck for those so far gone that they feel like testing their riding abilities in public.
[QUOTE=TC3200;8545702]
I’ll overlook the obvious slight. In fact, I’ll just chalk it up to inadvertent omission. :lol: But once again, the SADDLE SEAT discipline has been overlooked. In the spirit of fairness, I propose that I donate several massively oversized 22" poorly-designed Lane Fox saddles from the dark days before extended or adjustable stirrup bars. These saddles will be for the people who can knock back a few bourbons and still manage to ride a pancake of a saddle that puts them in a bona fide chair-seat.[/QUOTE]
LOL, great idea, wonder why I did not think of that!
[QUOTE=Alagirl;8545711]
the stuff needs to be served in feed tub sizes…little pudding cups won’t do it.
![/QUOTE]
No no no, Brian’s onto something…what if I want guac AND salsa AND spinach-artichoke dip AND hummus? SmartPak for humans!
[QUOTE=danceronice;8545828]
No no no, Brian’s onto something…what if I want guac AND salsa AND spinach-artichoke dip AND hummus? SmartPak for humans![/QUOTE]
yeah, but those sizes are made for medicine, vitamins, not basic food groups…
[QUOTE=danceronice;8545828]
No no no, Brian’s onto something…what if I want guac AND salsa AND spinach-artichoke dip AND hummus? SmartPak for humans![/QUOTE]
Don’t forget the different flavors that can be sprinkled on popcorn…white cheddar, sour cream & onion, ranch, nacho cheddar, milk chocolate caramel, kettle corn, garlic parmesan, dill pickle, cheesy jalapeno, and bacon cheddar to name a few.
Any of these can be packaged individually. Just think, when the popcorn is done popping, all you need to do is pull open your Smart Popcorn Pak storage drawer and take your pick.
If you don’t like any of these, maybe Horse Tech could do a custom mix as well. I wonder if Cocosoya could do the topping?
In the far corner of the restaurant in a corner booth, legal advice will be available on Mon, Wed, and Friday till noon. Tuesday and Thursday a representative from COTH Sleuth will be available for hire.
[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]
Wine from sour grapes and a juke box playing cheating songs is the order of the day!!!
[QUOTE=pepper1986;8545732]
Now that this train wreck is winding down and there doesn’t seem to be any more in sight I shall now go back and read the blue saddle, open trailer thread for enjoyment.[/QUOTE]
WARNING, some of the more entertaining statements went poof as that thread derailed. OP deleted some, changed others and wouldn’t surprise me if the mods meddled in it a bit.
But it’s still an entertaining read on a miserable day. One of the most entertaining ever, almost as good as the Arabian Jumper.
[QUOTE=vxf111;8545688]
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]
This is probably the most accurate summation of this saga, at least in reference to the Buyers. No info on the Seller, but from the local scuttlebutt and court documents, the buyer has a sketchy past and continues with shady dealings.
[edit]
[QUOTE=RugBug;8545627]
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?
…
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
…
Kudos to Anne FS for recognizing value in the experience even if it’s a different experience from the majority. [/QUOTE]
Thanks, RugBug, and to you, too, for paying it forward. I know more than one kid who had your situation and your positive experiences. In fact, I have a lovely photo of one of them at Keswick competing on a beautiful big jumper (pinning, too) thanks to her own hard work and the kindness of other people. That one is now an equine veterinarian.
i know all of our business contracts include a boilerplate clause to the effect of: the deal is what’s here in writing in this contract and nothing else– even if its in conflict with any prior verbal or reps in other documents. In one situation I know of, this clause held up despite a letter signed by our CEO promising a certain action (that would have generated significant income for the counterparty, and was an important inducement for those persons to sign the contract. But then the market changed and the whole project was scrapped (so, no income to those people at all, never mind the extra income described in the side letter.) I will tell you it sucked to have to be the person standing up in front of them and say sorry it wasn’t our intention but you’re getting bubkis from us. I felt bad for them, and angry at our CEO for having made that promise that he made in all sincerity, but then was impossible to fulfill. (he was no longer with the company by this point).
Anyway, to the point above, if it’s not in the contract, you should proceed as if it ain’t real, because the odds are stacked against you to prove it was real. This seems to come up alot also in the myriad boarding disputes, or work-for-board situations on COTH, where verbal understandings are not honored or are misinterpreted. GET IT IN WRITING IN YOUR CONTRACT, PEOPLE. If [whatever promise] is essential for you to be a part of the deal, then it has to be in the contract.
[QUOTE=chilirider;8546228]
This is probably the most accurate summation of this saga, at least in reference to the Buyers. No info on the Seller, but from the local scuttlebutt and court documents, the buyer has a sketchy past and continues with shady dealings.
While most posts under her other name here, Losgelassenheit are filled with an incredible amount of fantasy, there is always the possibility of a small kernel of truth. The thread about skinny horses is concerning. A worn out welcome at the local feed stores and a cash only policy makes the skinny horse thread worrisome.
Losgelassenheit’s other threads are pretty revealing also.
