I just caught up with the Totilas case and how the judge ruled in favour that the stallion’s previous owner could NOT sell their stock of frozen semen that they had from before they sold the stallion on. The judgement would seem to indicate that by default, when you sell a stallion, you are also selling exclusive breeding rights to that stallion, and if you have any frozen you can only use it for personal use?
My question is, does anyone know the details of this case and know if they simply left out accomodations for this in the contract (seems hard to believe), which is why a judge had to decide? If someone clearly lays out in a sale contract when selling a stallion that they CAN retain rights to use and sell the existing frozen that they have, will they be in the clear, or can they later be sued anyway?
Does anyone have personal experience or examples where the seller continues to have the right to sell their stock of frozen that they stored before selling their stallion on?
My question is, does anyone know the details of this case and know if they simply left out accomodations for this in the contract (seems hard to believe), which is why a judge had to decide?
I do not know the details, but I would be surprised it there wasn’t language in that sales contract that dealt with breeding rights. Schockemoehle has been in the stallion business for a long time - buying, selling, standing, etc. - and I can’t imagine that he would have overlooked such a detail in the contract. It is also possible that the contract just mentioned “breeding rights” but didn’t spell out in specific language that the phrase also pertained to frozen semen. The clause may have meant one thing in Germany, but another thing in The Netherlands. If that was the case, it was a big slip-up on Schokemoehle’s part.
If someone clearly lays out in a sale contract when selling a stallion that they CAN retain rights to use and sell the existing frozen that they have, will they be in the clear, or can they later be sued anyway?
If it is clearly spelled out in the contract, I can’t imagine that a U.S. court would overturn that provision. As for whether the seller might be sued anyway over that provision, since anyone can sue anyone else for any reason in the U.S., it is entirely possible that a buyer who likes paying attorneys might try it.
I know of several people who have retained those rights after selling their stallion. In one specific case, the seller accepted a much lower price for the horse specifically because the buyer agreed that the seller could keep and sell his own supply of frozen semen “without restraint.”
As far as it has been reported in the media, Paul Schockemöhle alleged that Kees Visser handed over 400 straws at the time of sale, and it was agreed that the few straws retained by Mr. Visser would be used on his own mares only. According to news reports, 11 years later, Mr. Visser started selling ICSI doses to the public, which is how the dispute started.
A week or so ago, Professional Auction Services handled the dispersal sale of a prominent Quarter Horse breeder, VS Enterprises, which included three stallions, which sold for $2.25 Mil, $1mil, and $250K. Frozen semen ownership and salability was carefully explained and documented, and you could check with the auction company. There is info on this website: https://prohorseservices.com/2023/vs-dispersal-auction/
