[QUOTE=Bronson77;8241909]
however she’s now saying she is going to the tribunal and we will be served court papers in which we have to respond !.!![/QUOTE]
What tribunal? Do you live in Ancient Rome?
This is completely insane. Makes you wonder if we need even more ridiculous consent forms in this world!
Personally, I’m all for removing consent forms and warning labels and just seeing what happens to everyone :lol:
[QUOTE=Ambitious Kate;8242294]
What tribunal? Do you live in Ancient Rome?[/QUOTE]
People (including lawyers) sometimes refer to court as “tribunals.” For example the ABA model rules of professional conduct use the term “tribunal” rather than “court.” It’s maybe a little archaic, but not unheard of.
So do you get reimbursed for the time spent showing her the horse and hauling it to the vet clinic?
This is nuts. Also, restating that horses don’t fail PPE. And to do this over a cheap (i.e. no rads) PPE blows my mind! My PSA is, if you can’t lunge a horse yourself and tell if it’s lame BEFORE bringing it to the vet for a PPE, then you should hire a trainer or bring a long a friend who can see lameness. You will save yourself a lot of hassle and money on PPEs. I always lunge them on the hardtop when I try them. I thought that was a standard practice? It’s how I was taught as part of buying a horse. First the seller rides, then you ride, then you trot straight and circle on concrete or blacktop, then you sign a contract with purchase contingent on PPE findings (if you are doing one). How does everyone else do it?
Usually that (surprise lameness) would indicate to me that we needed to do x-rays next, not that I was scrapping the deal. Especially on a horse in work/showing.
The whole thing is strange. I’m guessing they didn’t budget for PPEs in their shopping budget and are bluffing.
[QUOTE=Ambitious Kate;8242294]
What tribunal? Do you live in Ancient Rome?[/QUOTE]
Oh, Ambitious Kate! I needed a laugh this morning and you came through for me! I thank you!
I’d totally send her an invoice .
[QUOTE=st_francis;8242988]
I’d totally send her an invoice .[/QUOTE]
What a sane respone. Just the best. JumpQH, thanks for laughing with me.
I have to say, I was a paralegal for year, well, like 10 years, so that’s a while, in my younger days, and I have never, ever, heard court in New England anyway, referred to as a tribunal.
Tribunal to me refers to three judges. We don’t have that system in my state, as far as I have ever heard of. Well, not a lawyer, so maybe they use the term in their super secret cocktail meetings I was never allowed to attend. Heh.
Tribunal. Makes me think of Turkey, but that’s probably a little Midnight Express for most of you. No, Tribunal is a head shaker fer sher.
Tribunes-ancient Rome
So are these plebian buyers, who need protection from you, a patrician?
Maybe she’s lost in time.
[QUOTE=merrygoround;8243118]
Tribunes-ancient Rome
So are these plebian buyers, who need protection from you, a patrician?
Maybe she’s lost in time.[/QUOTE]
I think the OP said “tribunal” not “tribune.”
[QUOTE=Ambitious Kate;8243101]I have to say, I was a paralegal for year, well, like 10 years, so that’s a while, in my younger days, and I have never, ever, heard court in New England anyway, referred to as a tribunal.
Tribunal to me refers to three judges. We don’t have that system in my state, as far as I have ever heard of. Well, not a lawyer, so maybe they use the term in their super secret cocktail meetings I was never allowed to attend. Heh.
Tribunal. Makes me think of Turkey, but that’s probably a little Midnight Express for most of you. No, Tribunal is a head shaker fer sher.[/QUOTE]
Well, the ABA use the term “tribunal” and its MRPC are applied in whole or part by pretty much all the states (including those in New England)… so even though you never came across it it’s not a totally unheard of term. It’s the “duty of candor to the tribunal” and not “duty of candor to the court” for example. Most people do say “court” in common parlance but “tribunal” is not totally unheard of. I’ve seen it in orders too, especially where a Judge is talking more broadly about the Court (capital “C” court) and not the court (lowercase “c” court).
Smoking Crack!
[QUOTE=Bronson77;8234191]
Hi all, would like your opinions /advice
Our horse we are selling recently failed a level 2 pre purchase vet check that a potential buyers vet did on her . We are very surprised and upset and have a specialist vet coming to do further diagnostics ie X-Rays etc .
However this lady has now come back at us threatening legal action as she wants us to pay for her costs of coming to see our horse with 2 others including their trainer and the vet check totalling over 1000 as she stayed in a flash hotel for the night and went out for meals plus her diesel etc
I have never heard of this , she’s saying we lied and knew our mare was lame (We never thought she was lame and has no history of lameness apart from 4 years ago where she was out for 6 weeks with a nasty abbesses )Which is ridiculous we sent her very recent ridden videos of the mare before she came to See her and they also rode her twice before asking to buy her and never once said she was lame !!!
Our mare is 11 passed all flexions but was uneven on a 10m circle on concrete the vet marked it as 2/5 lameness
My question is does she have a right to claim this ?[/QUOTE]
As is the consensus, vet checks, etc., are all part of the price you pay to purchase a horse.
No one told her she had to do a vet check. That is her CHOICE. (Although I don’t recommend foregoing a vet check, it isn’t REQUIRED). She chose what diagnostics she wanted in the vet check. So it’s up to her to pay the vet. As far as “failing” the vet check… meh, vet checks are not really pass/fail. They are an evaluation made by a professional and based on the findings, you get to decide if you want the horse or not. If she chooses not to buy, that’s on her.
If you travel to see a horse, that cost is on you as well. Again, no one forced her to travel or stay in a posh hotel to come see the horse. It was her CHOICE.
Honestly, although I am not a lawyer, I doubt she has a leg to stand on. The whole reason we do vet checks is to garner information about the horse’s current health status and make a decision based on that information, test rides, etc. There is NEVER any guarantee that a horse will “pass”.
If she continues to contact you or harass you, simply state, “I am sorry you have decided my horse is not for you. I wish you the best of luck in finding a horse to your liking.”
Do NOT apologize for the horse not passing to her liking. Say nothing else. If she contacts you again, repeat the above statement saying nothing more. If she continues to threaten legal action, continue to repeat the above statement. She has to fork out the money to hire a lawyer. Let her. Until you hear from one on her behalf (unlikely), you’re not out a dime.
Though based on the style of writing/spelling… I am wondering if the OP isn’t British?! In which case I have no idea if in the UK “tribunal” is still a more/less commonly used term than “court.”
[QUOTE=vxf111;8243121]
I think the OP said “tribunal” not “tribune.”
Well, the ABA use the term “tribunal” and its MRPC are applied in whole or part by pretty much all the states (including those in New England)… so even though you never came across it it’s not a totally unheard of term. It’s the “duty of candor to the tribunal” and not “duty of candor to the court” for example. Most people do say “court” in common parlance but “tribunal” is not totally unheard of. I’ve seen it in orders too, especially where a Judge is talking more broadly about the Court (capital “C” court) and not the court (lowercase “c” court).[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, but a tribunal is made up of tribunes. 
[QUOTE=merrygoround;8243173]
Ah yes, but a tribunal is made up of tribunes. ;)[/QUOTE]
Not to be confused with tribute…
OP, I’m pretty sure in the eyes of a court it would be near impossible to prove you had prior knowledge of any lameness.
(I’m using common sense, not legal knowledge here!)
The way I see it is that only at veterinarian has any real authority in determining the soundness of a horse. Unless they could prove the a vet had already diagnosed the horse as unsound prior to them trying the horse, and prove that you are aware of the diagnosis then they cannot really accuse a lay person of lying about a lameness that they do not have any proven ability to diagnose.
In a nutshell, buyer is either very naive or chancing their luck.
I would not respond at all to her, if you have a lawyer let the lawyer handle it. I can’t help but wonder if this is just some kind of scam in hopes they can scare you into paying for their expenses.
I read through all these responses and have come away with two thoughts.
-
I’m slightly disappointed the prospective buyer didn’t show up and post in this thread.
-
Is this the first time ever that 100% of COTH respondents agree?
Yes, disappointing!
- Is this the first time ever that 100% of COTH respondents agree?
No, but it’s still a rare thing, causing the regulars to sit up, take notice and look for the fiery end of the world!
[QUOTE=Alagirl;8243185]
Not to be confused with tribute…[/QUOTE]
I volunteer as Tribute!
…Wait…wrong fiction…
[QUOTE=Alagirl;8243185]
Not to be confused with tribute…[/QUOTE]
“I volunteer as tribute!”
Carry on…
Haaha GypsyQ & I posting at the same time!!
