Law firm blog interestingly does address public policy aspect judges might considered in seller breaching sale of companion animal.
https://www.gislason-law.com/animal-law/breach-of-contract-contract-enforcement-and-buy-and-sell-agreements/
And it does seem like “speculative damages” is a “thing” courts are not fond of.
A lot of energy (and possible money) that could be put to better use…
Maybe? But… most of her other mares seemed to be random DHH mares, or recipients. Many of them not broken for riding. None of them had show records.
Call me crazy, but I suspect she acquired them for very low prices, or free.
And yes, I know I know she says she paid a high price for Bianca- the grey mare who has wonky conformation and appears extremely thin and neurological in pictures and video, and who Kate claims has a stomach tumor. Kate’s whole claim on Bianca being a high value broodmare is all about how excellent her progeny are. But… it doesn’t seem like any of her progeny have significant show records in recognized competition. So I call BS on that too.
Bianca does seem like a kind mare and like she gives everything to her foals though. She was seriously thin upon weaning last year. And I sincerely hope she’s doing better physically, or has been humanely euthanized. The pictures and video of her from 2023 were really sad.
100% correct. We’ve seen abuses towards dogs, horses, and now people.
People like this are toxic.
I’ll say it again, those babies all look like Viking ships. Every one. WTH?
WHAT? Sued her father? 
I wonder if she is still set to inherit?
Who needs reality tv when we’ve got the soap opera ‘As the CoTH Gallops’?
COTH aside, if a prospective seller did any research regarding this nasty piece of work, all you have to do is look at her FB page and those horrible pictures of thin and malnourished horses she proudly posted. KS really is one of the most despicable people in the horse world.
I don’t want to be sounding Kate-positive, I’ve been mad several times after picking up the pieces of this neglected filly, who now looks great. BUT, I almost feel sorry for her. I can’t be mad anymore.
Of course she shouldn’t own animals, but can you imagine living in this constant state of chaos and rage? It has to be horrible to be that bitter! Yes, this is all self inflicted madness, but I feel when someone is in that state of mind it has to be overwhelming. She needs help, intervention.
The thing is that the seller has a good reason for “breaking the contract” IMO, because she is essentially doing so due to animal welfare concerns.
Information came to light that was proven to be true and as a responsible person the seller decided they she could not sell her animals, in good conscience, to such a person.
I’ve seen some court decisions that have raised my eyebrow in the past, but I’ll be impressed if Kate gets anything out of this aside form the purchase price refunded. She’s just building up that cray reputation even more.
Who would want to do business with a person like that? No one in their right mind would.
Her distress at losing an animal isn’t about caring about them…it’s about “is there still time to harvest eggs”.
The seller need only point out the harassment and insanity and underfed babies and gaunt mares and and and and and. Kate’s going to get her money back, and Kate’s going to pay lawyers to spit in the wind. Kate is penny-wise and pound-foolish. Kate is not, however, getting this pretty bay mare and the mini and the straws. No way, no ma’am, not happening.
Kate Shearer has a remarkable reputation, that much I know.
Agreed. I don’t see Kate prevailing on anything except the return of the purchase price, if Kate had even paid it yet. I don’t see any judge forcing the seller to send the mare to Kate, or awarding consequential damages.
I commend this seller for looking out for her mare’s best interests. I’m sorry this has forced her to incur full-on psycho rage Kate, but I think she and her mare really dodged a bullet.
Thank God this mare is not going to KS. A personal thank you to those who made the owner aware. Thank you to the mare’s owner who refused to sell the mare to KS, despite a difficult personal situation. Despite the overwhelming amount of evil stemming from KS IMO, there are still good people involved in this. This thread has really made me question humanity a few times before.
I really hope this mare owner is left alone.
There ARE other hobbies out there, KS.
I have heard sky diving is more exhilarating than legal paperwork.
If all these lawsuits have been legitimately filed, a judge needs to file a Gatekeeper Order against KS for frivolous lawsuit(s)
Interesting. But… there are multiple states involved. Does that matter?
It would take someone noticing, it would be nice to have a GateKeeper in each state. The Clerk’s office tends to take notice of repeat customers. At least we do where I work.
Very interesting. Thanks for explaining that
I am a little behind so perhaps this has already been pointed out. Kate/Kathryn Shearer - you alone are responsible for this mess. And by providing a cautionary tale for ANYONE who chooses to do business with you in the future. Adulting is doing the right thing. Stomping your foot, blaming COTH and then pursuing legal action against this poor woman who put the welfare of her mare above the sales price, is nothing more than you throwing a tantrum. Nothing adult about that.
Agreed - she puts it all out there for the world to see. Brags about it, even.
We have nothing other than Kate’s word that someone from this thread contacted the seller. It’s more than entirely possible that the seller decided to do a search for no reason other than sheer curiosity and found the whole horror show.
Very broad strokes discussion here…
Civil cases are brought between private parties. If a person has been wronged in a way that the law recognizes as a civil cause of action, that person can sue. The person can also elect not to sue. All of us have probably had experiences that gave rise to a civil claim and we decided just to move on with life. There is generally no obligation on any person to file a civil claim.
Most civil actions operate under the “American Rule” where each party bears his/her own costs. So if P sues D for tort and wins, P still has to pay P’s own attorney. This is one reason why we have contingency fees in a lot of cases, the attorney is only paid if the attorney’s client prevails and out of the proceeds of the judgment.
There are exceptions to the American Rule. By statute, some civil actions permit fee shifting. One example is Title VII. If P (employee) sues D (employer) for employment discrimination and P prevails, D can be ordered to pay P’s attorney’s fees (and D would also pay D’s fees). In addition, parties can agree to fee shifting in a contract. That may or may not be enforceable. It is an exception to the usual American Rule, which is the default rule in civil cases.
There are many prerequisites for a contract to be enforceable. Among other requirements, the parties must have a “meeting of the minds” and agree on the terms and there must also be consideration (something of value exchanged or a change in position). There are many reasons why what otherwise seems like an enforceable contract might not be. For example, if one party lacks capacity (is a minor) the contract is not enforceable. Another example is misrepresentation. For example, if someone made representations about their breeding program, the condition in which they kept horses, etc., those could be construed as material misrepresentations that rendered an otherwise enforceable contract unenforceable.
Assuming there is an enforceable contract and a breach, then the question becomes what damages are available for breach. Compensatory damages are the typical form of damages, whatever money is necessary to make a prevailing party whole. If I paid $4000 for a horse and spent $50 getting a halter with the horse’s name on the plate, and then the seller backs out-- I could sue for the purchase price and possibly the cost of the halter. Whether I could get damages for the special damages would turn on various factors. If the halter can have the nameplate changed for $5 I am probably not going to recover the $50, I am probably going to recover $5 because I haven’t entirely lost the value of the halter.
Specific performance is another form of damages but it is generally only available where money damages are insufficient. If you agree to sell me a one-of-a-kind priceless painting, that might be a case where specific performance might be ordered-- you might be required to give me the painting. This is pretty unlikely in a case over a horse because you can have the value of the horse assessed and then take that money and buy a replacement horse. In most cases horses are going to be viewed as interchangeable chattel that have a value which can be monetarily valued.
There are other forms of damages as well (none really being discussed here).
Damages will be reduced by any failure to mitigate by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is offered a refund that she could use to go buy another horse and she chooses not to do that, she doesn’t get to claim additional damages because she didn’t have a mare available to breed this year. All plaintiffs are expected to mitigate their damages within reason. Someone who has been offered a refund and doesn’t take it faces a risk that s/he will be deemed to have failed to mitigate damages that follow the offer of a refund.
A party who has been sued might be able to assert a counter claim. Some states recognize a tort of “malicious prosecution.” This is defined differently in different states, but generally it involves the filing of a lawsuit for an improper purpose. So going scorched earth on someone who backed out of a contract and offered to send you a refund of your purchase price as revenge for what other people posted on social media could arguably meet this standard.
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
