[QUOTE=OverandOnward;8545488]
“Oh I have a lot of riding experience.” “Really, how long have you ridden?” “It was all day.”[/QUOTE]
Literally snorted out loud :lol:
[QUOTE=chilirider;8546228]
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.[/QUOTE]
I didn’t see anything about the cash only policy. Where was that?
Although that feed thread was odd. I mean it was a good thread with lots of interesting discussion by forum members, but it was the latest in the long string of threads started by OP about healthy horses going lame “in the blink of an eye” while on the longe line, and mystery ailments, mystery lamenesses, “Another mystery lameness,” too thin horses, horses eating their own manure, a horse that died (“As word of my guy’s passing has spread, I’ve been contacted by 3 others who’ve lost horses in identical manners at this barn, and 2 others whose horses became seriously ill due to malnourishment.”), etc., etc.
I was off line for a few weeks around the holidays so I didn’t see that thread until the beginning of February but I wondered why no one said, wait a minute, I don’t think what you’re describing is the feed at all.
I thought the feed thread seemed perfectly reasonable. In fact, the intense amount of detail, from working with a nutritionist, weighting all the hay and grain, knowing everything about the feed seemed very responsible. She seemed very on top of her horses’ nutrition (if you were going to be critical, in fact so much attention to detail that I wondered if some of the info was kind of embellished – everything was managed to such a high degree of precision).
Yeah, I didn’t buy it. Any crazy thing can happen with horses, but 3 feedings of a feed and two horses were head-bobbing lame so the feed caused that? I dunno…
In conjunction with the plethora of other “mystery” and “sudden onset” illnesses and lamenesses over a year or so all from this one barn, I would not have jumped to the feed being the sole issue that time. There’s all kinds of problems happening there. Certainly, bad batches of feed have made it into barns and the problem (that one particular problem affecting multiple horses) could have been that - a bad batch of feed. But that’s different than “this brand of feed” is causing many horses to decline in health. IMHO there was more to be looked at than that, although many of the posters pointed out that it seemed in switching feeds she just missed that the newer feed was lower in calories and therefore feeding the same amounts wouldn’t work.
[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]
A very clear summary.
If the facts were just as you describe in the quoted post above, you nailed it, all good. And yet …
[With the caveat that it’s all hypothetical at this point. 
I have no idea which party could or should prevail, morally or legally, as I am assuming I do NOT know correct facts on either side from what was posted in this thread. FWIW :winkgrin:]
Nowhere has OP admitted that she intended to flip the pony. At the time of negotiation or any other time. Similarly, in can’t be proved that Actual Buyer had the intention all along to transfer ownership to the OP. The “child” statement is easy to wrap all around a cloud of semantics (‘grown child of mom’). The definition of ‘disadvantaged’ is personal and situational, also a matter of semantics and context.
There’s no way to prove the intentions. They are just suppositions posted on COTH by people who are not party to the deal and not close to the respective parties.
Without that hard evidence, Seller is dependent on her own diplomacy and Buyer’s goodwill to negotiate a reversal of the transaction so she can keep the pony. And unfortunately Seller didn’t go that route.
Objectively, I find it hard to argue Seller’s side because of Seller’s documented actions. Due to the delayed pick-up, she had a month to communicate her second thoughts and negotiate a cancellation. Seller handled it in a way that makes things very difficult for her side, regardless of her reasons.
Also just fwiw! We have not yet beat everything to death! 
There was a suggestion, also with no evidence at the time to make it into hard fact, that Seller may have held out on this sale because she sold the same pony again for more bucks. That was chewed on earlier in this thread, but it seems to have gotten lost … 
If that happened it would be much easier to prove that than it will be to prove what the OP was thinking during the original sale negotiation. Just find that pony and someone else who thinks they bought it since the time OP thinks she bought it. :winkgrin:
Another random thought to gnaw on at the Blue Trailer Bar & Grill …
Maybe out there in the Real World this has all been resolved … I hope so … but until it is, that pony is really stuck wherever it is, with ownership in limbo. I’m not sure what Seller can do with it until the contract is put to rest in some way. Even ride. Every day without a resolution is a risk that some adverse event that harms the pony could put Seller in a much worse situation with this contract than she is now. Hopefully both parties have come to their senses.
I’m not at all taking sides on which set of facts seem more likely. I am simply explaining that there is a set of facts that could make out fraudulent inducement. Which makes this not nearly as clear cut as 99% of the posters on this thread seem to think.
I will also note that if there exists no child and A and B are grown adults, making up and flipping the pony seems like a perfectly logical explanation for their behavior. Even if they don’t intend to flip, A negotiated the price down based on the needy-ness of the child… WHO DOES NOT EXIST. Something doesn’t add up on the buyer’s end, I would say.
As to why the seller gave them the reason she did for withholding the pony-- remember that is what we’ve gotten third hand from what the SHIPPER told the BUYER was said to him by the seller. We don’t know what S actually told A. There could have been numerous things communicated, including but not limited to S having the pony several weeks longer than expected and having to pay for it in the meantime, that might have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. But it doesn’t matter, if S was fraudulently induced, she can back out for ANY REASON related or unrelated to the fraud. The contract becomes voidable by her. It’s her choice.
Which is why, if you want your contracts do be enforceable… don’t engage in fraud!
[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 was that very troubled adolescent. I was a barn rat turned working student. My trainer and his then-wife basically re-parented me. They, just by living their lives, showed me what a healthy relationship looked like. They picked me up from school, bought me school clothes, and taught me how to drive. They completely turned my life around. I’m still in contact with them both twenty-five years later; the person who fills the “dad” spot in my head is my trainer, not my actual violent, abusive father. I completely credit my trainer with giving me the emotion-management skills needed to be successful in the military and to break the generational cycle of violence. I married a good man who is like my trainer instead of a man like my father.
[QUOTE=vxf111;8546740]
Which is why, if you want your contracts do be enforceable… don’t engage in fraud![/QUOTE]
No fun in that! Whatever would we post about in that case?
[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]
BOOM. drop the mic. leave the stage. :applause:
This is a contract attorney’s definition of “material breach of contract”. It favors the OP and gives the seller a very weak defense:
2.3 Termination for Breach. If either party commits a Material Breach of its obligations under this agreement, the other party may terminate this agreement by giving the breaching party at least ten days’ prior notice, except that any such notice will not result in termination if the breaching party cures that breach before the ten-day period elapses. For purposes of this agreement, “Material Breach” means, with respect to a given breach, that a reasonable person in the position of the nonbreaching party would wish to terminate this agreement because of that breach.
First of all: Failure to pick up the pony within a given time frame (especially since the bad weather was a mitigating factor) was not a MATERIAL breach of the contract, but only an incidental breach.
Second: seller did not give the Buyer notice of intent to void the contract and then give Buyer 10 days to cure the breach.
Granted, this is a generic definition, used by many attornies (and very close to what I used). 1. Breach must be material (i.e. non payment), 2. Seller must give notice. 3. Buyer has 10 days to cure the breach.
But we don’t even get to breach if there was a defect in formation… There’s no need to give notice and a cure period for fraudulent inducement. It’s not a breach, it’s a failure to have a meeting of the minds.
[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8546958]
This is a contract attorney’s definition of “material breach of contract”. It favors the OP and gives the seller a very weak defense:
2.3 Termination for Breach. If either party commits a Material Breach of its obligations under this agreement, the other party may terminate this agreement by giving the breaching party at least ten days’ prior notice, except that any such notice will not result in termination if the breaching party cures that breach before the ten-day period elapses. For purposes of this agreement, “Material Breach” means, with respect to a given breach, that a reasonable person in the position of the nonbreaching party would wish to terminate this agreement because of that breach.
First of all: Failure to pick up the pony within a given time frame (especially since the bad weather was a mitigating factor) was not a MATERIAL breach of the contract, but only an incidental breach.
Second: seller did not give the Buyer notice of intent to void the contract and then give Buyer 10 days to cure the breach.
Granted, this is a generic definition, used by many attornies (and very close to what I used). 1. Breach must be material (i.e. non payment), 2. Seller must give notice. 3. Buyer has 10 days to cure the breach.[/QUOTE]
This only matters if the contract was not voidable by Buyer for fraudulent inducement. Breach analysis comes in when you have an enforceable contract. If Buyer says I’m voiding the contract on grounds of fraudulent inducement, there is no opportunity to cure. There is no breach. The contract is VOID.
Not all contracts allow for cure. This also could have been a “time is of the essence” type contract in which case something like failing to pick up pony could have been material. We don’t have enough information. And where the contract is silent on some things, breach may be decided by what is standard industry practice. Such as, maybe it is standard industry practice that you can’t buy a pony and not pick it up for 2 months without owing board and expenses.
UCC gap filling! Huzzah!
Just want to say how interesting and informative this whole thread has been. Really makes you feel like you need to come up with every. single. situation. in which something could go wrong when forming a contract.
Certainly makes you never want to have any sort of financial obligation with strangers!
Everybody in the Peanut Gallery just pipe down now and sit quietly…maybe this thing will just get tried right here with attorneys present? Is there a judge on the forum? :applause:
If not, people might start calling “Jerry, Jerry, JERRY!”
[QUOTE=lachelle;8547168]
Just want to say how interesting and informative this whole thread has been. Really makes you feel like you need to come up with every. single. situation. in which something could go wrong when forming a contract.
Certainly makes you never want to have any sort of financial obligation with strangers![/QUOTE]
And even more to the point, once an agreement is reached, finalize! Pick up your new pony and do not let final closure drag out, even if the snow is up to the fenders! I have a feeling that if the pick-up had happened right away and Seller wasn’t looking at cute and wistful pony all those weeks, we wouldn’t have this thread today. Seller kind of says so in her post.
[QUOTE=OverandOnward;8547486]
And even more to the point, once an agreement is reached, finalize! Pick up your new pony and do not let final closure drag out, even if the snow is up to the fenders! I have a feeling that if the pick-up had happened right away and Seller wasn’t looking at cute and wistful pony all those weeks, we wouldn’t have this thread today. Seller kind of says so in her post. :)[/QUOTE]
^^^|
I must admit as a prior seller, had a buyer send a trailer that was way too small for a 17 h plus horse. I had them send a talIer trailer. I had second thoughts about their common sense, safety & overall competent abilities. In the long run, sold is sold.
[QUOTE=RubyTuesday;8547320]
Everybody in the Peanut Gallery just pipe down now and sit quietly…maybe this thing will just get tried right here with attorneys present? Is there a judge on the forum? :applause:
If not, people might start calling “Jerry, Jerry, JERRY!”[/QUOTE]
YOU are NOT the FATHER!
Oh wait sorry wrong show.
Seller could have put a different pony on the trailer, and then we could have had another thread entirely!
“You are not the father” put that in my head.
In defense of the OP, there was some terrible weather around the time the sale was going forward, and good for her for choosing a shipper who declined to drive a horse trailer in it. Let’s give credit where it is due. Sometimes you can’t make a trip happen.
COTH sleuths, see if you can find out if this pony is still advertised! I am not good at that kind of stuff.
