[QUOTE=Simkie;8573434]I certainly hope that this was covered in the lease contract. But since the OP says they haven’t done much with the horse and have been legging it back up, it’s entirely possible that this is a long standing chronic issue already. Why was the horse out of work to begin with?
Regardless, the leaser certainly should not be responsible for this decision alone. What do the owners say?[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. The OP didn’t go into specifics of their lease arrangements. My comment was based on a lease that I have agreed to. Which is pretty much the norm in my neck of the woods.
If a horse had a known pre-existing “old” injury is one thing. If not known and was not pick up on a PLE as far as most lessors would be concerned that is the chances one takes. The same as if they bought the horse.
I would like to think I am very fair about these things. I leased a really nice horse for an extremely fair price because I like the people and they didn’t have a lot of money. A few months later it was discovered the horse had an issue that went diagnosed by the “experts”. I could have held them to the letter of the contract but didn’t.
Drawstrings IMO was very magnanimous. Yes that could have happened in her back yard. But that doesn’t let the lessee off the hook for the expenses needed to get the horse sound. Leasing a horse is the same as owning it during the period of the lease. A long with all of the expenses associated. Good or bad, that IS the chances one takes when they sign on the dotted line.
The SAME chances any of us take when we buy and or breed a horse. Why do buyers, lessees feel we should take, accept 100% of ALL risks?
When I sell a horse I really hope the new owner knows what they are doing. Care taking and training. But if they screw up directly and or the horse gets hurt in a padded stall at no fault of anyone’s, sh*t happens. They pay the price.
People who lease a horse take a BIG chance and risk. Maybe the lessee did everything right and sh*t happened. Maybe they did too much to soon and the horse suffered a soft tissue injury or any number of things. I don’t think it is fair to expect the owner to shoulder all of the expenses because the lessee doesn’t “own” the horse.
Generally the only reason people lease a horse is because they can’t afford to buy it. The same with people who lease expensive cars by and large. But not always in either case.
IMO people who lease a horse are taking a huge risk. Even if the lessee pays all of the expenses when the horse is injured. Good chance the horse will be worth far less when it is returned. If it was sold that’s not the case. There are good reasons to lease a horse and it can be a win, win for both. But if things go wrong the owner is screwed far more than the person who leased it.
Just my way of looking at the big picture.
To each their own.