I said that if the alternative to LK paying a lump sum of $40,000 for the horse and the horse living out its retirement at MBs expense at HH, that’s a better deal for MB than LK not paying $40,000 for the horse and the horse living out its retirement at MBs expense at HH.
That statement is true regardless of whether the cost of maintaining a horse at HH is $500 a month or $50,000 a month.
I just assumed that the horse was sold (payment/price undetermined) with the trainer’s insistence that it remain on the property/care of the trainer for the rest of his days. Assumed because I’ve seen such transactions occur many times. With the buyer paying all expenses, of course.
In my over 40 years on this planet, I have never seen a sales contract stipulate this, nor could I imagine how it is enforceable. I have, however, seen many a lease contract with said stipulation.
Come to think of it, the name implies that currently is a temporary situation, when it could actually mean permanently/always/forever, etc., etc.
More word games. Who does that sound like?
This has been my suspicion all along. More recent assertions strengthen my opinion. And you’re not wrong! Agree there too. And before anyone jumps up my ass that I am commenting on a person or their “style” vs their content, their content is what informs my opinion. It just blatantly shows that they do not understand this world.
I already forget what they said, but I did respond to it in a previous post.
It’s unfortunate.
There was that one spell for a few days or a week or whatever it was when the primary lungers were absent from the thread.
It was remarkable how much more pleasant it was for that week. Even if people were sharing recipes or what have you. At least it was not the same old spinning in circles.
The horse was for sale. It is a huge assumption (insider info?) to assume it was only for sale to LK. It seems that the only person who had concerns for it “remaining in the only home it had ever known” was LK. It seems that since MB was selling the horse, there was no expectation from Mb for it to remain on HH after the sale. He would have gotten that money from someone eventually, the horse was for sale.
This trainer no longer breeds, has become rather paranoid after some that have slipped through the cracks.
Neither. You should be embarrassed that you clearly do not understand how these businesses work, and yet you insist on posting as if you do. Clear enough?
With all due respect, if I am correct in interpreting your post to mean that they had bad experiences with sales and/or homebreds and then decided to stipulate an on-farm policy, then I remain resolute in stating that that is a strange outlier. Also, perhaps they don’t have the constitution to breed (I don’t!).
Yup. Clicked on the post arrow and saw nothing, or almost nothing…didn’t someone say they don’t delete? Ore am I misremembering the wrong someone?
OK, I finally caught up to the thread, yet again. Not for long, I’m sure.
I would like to take a moment to thank the people who have such strong search skills that they can go back and find the old posts that show people for what they are, namely, completely unreliable sources of information.
Speaking of which. I’m not going to go back and hunt for the post about JK‘s wildly varying accounts of the K family’s reaction to the verdict. But it seems to be a K trait that the story they tell depends entirely on their current audience, and what impression they wish to make at that moment.
Similar to someone who invents completely different values on their properties, depending on whether they are talking to a lender, a buyer, or the tax man.
I know some of how horse businesses work.
The point I was making, however, did not require knowledge of the working of a business in any particular industry.
I could make exactly the same point using a different industry as the context. I’ve noticed that a couple people understood my point, even if you did not.
Or the press/public.
I definitely know of people who include a first option in a sales contract, so that when the buyer wants to sell the horse, they have to offer it back to the previous owner first. I don’t know how hard that would be to enforce, but that is a thing I’ve seen.
I have not seen it, but I can imagine someone might come up with a contract where they want the horse to stay and board on their property with the new owner. Again, I don’t know how hard that would be to enforce.
Carrying the horse forever at no cost to the buyer? I’ve never seen that one. Ever.
I don’t know her too well except via business but definitely found her eccentric. I do not think she is breeding anymore; I know her last stallion was euthed a few years back.
Not agreeing with your point is not the same as not understanding your point.
How is the information on the police report you claimed to have read coming along?
Can you imagine being a judge and LK walks into your ring? Or a show secretary when she wants to rent a stall, or ring steward, or a competitor seeing her on the grounds? She’s done in that industry. I can’t beleive she found a barn to take her and her horses, frankly.
I wonder when it was deleted.
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
