[QUOTE=Pennywell Bay;8774320]
My goodness, my face on Gisele Bündchen’s body would be more convincing.
There must be something wrong with her in the head if she thought that was a good marketing tool (and looked natural).[/QUOTE]
The ad says the mare can take a joke. I wonder if she is referring to the german breeding or the photoshop job! Or maybe it is a misprint and she means the reader!!!
http://www.equinenow.com/horse-ad-1093583
And I am going to forewarn anyone looking- check papers carefully on this one…
[QUOTE=chilirider;8774374]
The ad says the mare can take a joke. I wonder if she is referring to the german breeding or the photoshop job! Or maybe it is a misprint and she means the reader!!![/QUOTE]
As the owner of a German horse for many years, I can tell you that German horses have no sense of humor. And cannot take a joke. So it must be the reader/buyer or seller since it cannot be a german horse with a sense of humor.:lol:
Why on earth would someone take a picture at that angle??? WTF. (I guess there is a reason…lol)
[QUOTE=chilirider;8774385]
http://www.equinenow.com/horse-ad-1093583
And I am going to forewarn anyone looking- check papers carefully on this one…[/QUOTE]
The horse is listed as sold. Do you know this pony?
That pony gots a speckled arse.
[QUOTE=trubandloki;8774213]
I do not get the point of doing a photo shop like this. If you do not like the background pose the horse some where else, they are clearly posed photos.[/QUOTE]
It’s not like anyone will fail to notice if they come in person and the place looks like a dump instead of paradise?!
[QUOTE=vxf111;8774796]
It’s not like anyone will fail to notice if they come in person and the place looks like a dump instead of paradise?![/QUOTE]
wow, this the most amazing and twisted threads I’ve ever seen! Just wow. Horse world is so cray cray. There’s a good reason “horse trading” has a unsavory connotation…
One thing that keeps comming up for me, from the original tale (tall) of the seller refusing to release pony wanting to give money back, void sale etc.
Many people said ‘get a lawyer’ ‘sue’ etc. IME unless the horse were worth a significant sum…like over 10k at least, and you could PROVE it’s monetary value----a lawyer is unlikely to really want your case, and what it would cost you to pursue any of it would be largely…not worth time and effort. A good attorney would 100% advise you…just take the money back and call me back if they scam off with that money returned. It would be easier to prove / get a judgement your favor/ get a lein etc etc on money not returned as stated it would be, than a horse not handed over but seller handing you money back in full.
I mean, frankly, as a seller, you could move the horse to undisclosed location tell buyer the horse died here’s your money. Unless it was really really provable you just suffered damages/loss beyond your purchase price…like it was Valegro before the olympics… and a seller could come up with million reasons and stalls to explain no body or no ability to prove the body exists yadayada no one is going to want to pursue a case like that if you are being handed money back in full.
There’s law on the books—and there is law as it get’s “interpreted in practice”.
Bill of sale in hand, screeching at a judge, with a seller saying pony is dead, it was rendered, it was hauled off and buried, I don’t know what happened but here is your full refund…judge is going to say take the money go home. Now— in this case, still, seller could make valid positions as to why they were mislead/ buyer misrepresented, numerous mitigating circumstances hence here is the money back. Owner had a duty of care to maintain the pony during delays, argument can be made owner had a duty of care to the pony under animal welfare law to ensure it would be safe/not in hands of a abuser/bad home etc etc. All “mitigating” circumstances towards the seller saying I void this sale, you didn’t take possession, I give you your money back in full.
Also----ding ding ever heard that phrase “possession is 9/10 of the law”? It is a prime example of law on the books, as opposed to law as it get’s interpreted in life daily in the courts. If you are are in “possession” of something, in practice, the law finds that you tend to retain more ownership/ more control/ more consideration…it weights in your favor if you are “in posession” (or against your favor if you just got pulled over with a open wine bottle on passenger seat …or roach in the ash tray…or stolen watch in the glove box…;0)
In the original case, the dastardly OP spun on COTHers…the seller had retained possession of the pony, and was saying here’s your money back. That favored her case. Then the delays…that would be spun further to favor her case that the original transaction was in fact open to interpretation for her to void. the seller had possesion and mitigating factors in HER FAVOR that in a court…would carry more weight than a a paper bill of sale.
Heed this ---- contracts on paper are valuable to be sure, however they are not clad in stone—also keep in mind verbal contracts, however innocuous sounding…can also be brought into play and reinterpreted." I will definitely have the pony picked up friday. " monday you call say it fell thru…argument made you breached the terms of the contract. Then of course you counter and say I had mitigating circumstances! The shipper bailed! And that’s valid…but again, unless your pony is valued like Valegro or American Pharaoh…the loss of use/value/ future income estimate, and horse is quantifiable insured/estimated as such, you realy do not have a snowballs chance in hell of swaying a court to give you that pony…without a heck of a hassle that no one at all will advise you to take the expense of…and as I’ve said, you never took possession of that pony so it’s in practice a uphill battle for you to prove you must be given a pony not your money back.
Well, sorry that was long. But—people often have to great a faith in arm chair legalese—and pieces of paper. The law is “interpreted”…how it is interpreted gets a lot of variance, place to place, and with different circumstances.
This is why lawyers are expensive! It’s not just about finding a law/rule broken and saying seee see they broke that rule! Ain’t how it works in practice…
The Ransomed Pony is kinda like a reversed first refusal case, or clause that if a person wants to get rid of a horse you transferred to them, they have to call you first. How many of those have you seen end well if the buyer didn’t respect that/ choose to uphold that contract? How many have you seen quietly passed along without a word? How many do you know sucessfully tracked down and prevailed in getting the horse back (unless whoever had it found out and was willing/agreeed to deal with original owner?)
??? It’s from August.
Well, this is a recent ad, which is pretty much word for word of the ad mentioned previously:
http://www.equinenow.com/horse-ad-1117770
Horse is back for sale, for less $$. Following the link to the farm info page, the same horse is listed as SOLD back in late July.
http://www.equinenow.com/farm/odyssey_farm_sales.htm
Same photo, different photoshop?
Calling Chilirider!
[QUOTE=Cheltenham;8953863]
wow, this the most amazing and twisted threads I’ve ever seen! Just wow. Horse world is so cray cray. There’s a good reason “horse trading” has a unsavory connotation…
One thing that keeps comming up for me, from the original tale (tall) of the seller refusing to release pony wanting to give money back, void sale etc.
Many people said ‘get a lawyer’ ‘sue’ etc. IME unless the horse were worth a significant sum…like over 10k at least, and you could PROVE it’s monetary value----a lawyer is unlikely to really want your case, and what it would cost you to pursue any of it would be largely…not worth time and effort. A good attorney would 100% advise you…just take the money back and call me back if they scam off with that money returned. It would be easier to prove / get a judgement your favor/ get a lein etc etc on money not returned as stated it would be, than a horse not handed over but seller handing you money back in full.
I mean, frankly, as a seller, you could move the horse to undisclosed location tell buyer the horse died here’s your money. Unless it was really really provable you just suffered damages/loss beyond your purchase price…like it was Valegro before the olympics… and a seller could come up with million reasons and stalls to explain no body or no ability to prove the body exists yadayada no one is going to want to pursue a case like that if you are being handed money back in full.
There’s law on the books—and there is law as it get’s “interpreted in practice”.
Bill of sale in hand, screeching at a judge, with a seller saying pony is dead, it was rendered, it was hauled off and buried, I don’t know what happened but here is your full refund…judge is going to say take the money go home. Now— in this case, still, seller could make valid positions as to why they were mislead/ buyer misrepresented, numerous mitigating circumstances hence here is the money back. Owner had a duty of care to maintain the pony during delays, argument can be made owner had a duty of care to the pony under animal welfare law to ensure it would be safe/not in hands of a abuser/bad home etc etc. All “mitigating” circumstances towards the seller saying I void this sale, you didn’t take possession, I give you your money back in full.
Also----ding ding ever heard that phrase “possession is 9/10 of the law”? It is a prime example of law on the books, as opposed to law as it get’s interpreted in life daily in the courts. If you are are in “possession” of something, in practice, the law finds that you tend to retain more ownership/ more control/ more consideration…it weights in your favor if you are “in posession” (or against your favor if you just got pulled over with a open wine bottle on passenger seat …or roach in the ash tray…or stolen watch in the glove box…;0)
In the original case, the dastardly OP spun on COTHers…the seller had retained possession of the pony, and was saying here’s your money back. That favored her case. Then the delays…that would be spun further to favor her case that the original transaction was in fact open to interpretation for her to void. the seller had possesion and mitigating factors in HER FAVOR that in a court…would carry more weight than a a paper bill of sale.
Heed this ---- contracts on paper are valuable to be sure, however they are not clad in stone—also keep in mind verbal contracts, however innocuous sounding…can also be brought into play and reinterpreted." I will definitely have the pony picked up friday. " monday you call say it fell thru…argument made you breached the terms of the contract. Then of course you counter and say I had mitigating circumstances! The shipper bailed! And that’s valid…but again, unless your pony is valued like Valegro or American Pharaoh…the loss of use/value/ future income estimate, and horse is quantifiable insured/estimated as such, you realy do not have a snowballs chance in hell of swaying a court to give you that pony…without a heck of a hassle that no one at all will advise you to take the expense of…and as I’ve said, you never took possession of that pony so it’s in practice a uphill battle for you to prove you must be given a pony not your money back.
Well, sorry that was long. But—people often have to great a faith in arm chair legalese—and pieces of paper. The law is “interpreted”…how it is interpreted gets a lot of variance, place to place, and with different circumstances.
This is why lawyers are expensive! It’s not just about finding a law/rule broken and saying seee see they broke that rule! Ain’t how it works in practice…
The Ransomed Pony is kinda like a reversed first refusal case, or clause that if a person wants to get rid of a horse you transferred to them, they have to call you first. How many of those have you seen end well if the buyer didn’t respect that/ choose to uphold that contract? How many have you seen quietly passed along without a word? How many do you know sucessfully tracked down and prevailed in getting the horse back (unless whoever had it found out and was willing/agreeed to deal with original owner?)[/QUOTE]
So erudite, yet so gratuitous.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
