Is it unreasonable to put a right of first refusal and ask that if/when the horse retires that it retires at my family’s farm as a condition of a sale? I’m selling my mare for personal reasons, but I never want to worry that she ends up in bad hands after her show career. She still has several year before retirement, but I can’t help thinking about it. As for the location of her eventual retirement, it would be completely free to the future owners and they would be able to see her whenever they please.
1 Like
Not at all unreasonable, but be aware they are not always abided by and will not often hold up in court.
12 Likes
I think it’s reasonable to put that clause in your sale contract, however I would be sure to consult an equine attorney about this since these types of clauses are not always enforceable.
1 Like
I agree with the above post.
Not unreasonable but you can not make it happen.
Probably the best thing to do is write in there that you will gladly provide a retirement home for this horse at any point, include all your contact information.
Then, in a not creepy way, make friends with the buyer and support their riding career (cheering them on) with this horse so when it comes time to retire this mare they will gladly pass her back to you.
9 Likes
Another vote for not unreasonable, but unlikely to help much.
I was told by a lawyer a long time ago that you have to put a penalty in if they don’t abide by a FROF clause or similar, because if the horse has been sold or given away, the court can’t force the new owner to give it up. If there’s a penalty in the clause, and you prove they violated the terms of the agreement, the court will uphold the specified penalty.
In addition to being unenforceable, it may not be possible or practical.
We bought my first horse with a First Right of Refusal. But when we needed to sell/retire him, the seller had died, and her farm had been sold.
2 Likes
This. Generally if someone violates a right of first refusal you can get liquidated damages (the penalty) if that is in the contract, but you won’t get the actual horse back. So having that clause can act as a deterrent to keep people from violating it. But if the horse is being retired (and worth little $) and the liquidated damages is a higher amount, then a court may not even enforce the damages clause if its found to be disproportionate.
When I had a horse that I felt similarly about, I was selling him through a reputable sales trainer who does a ton of these agreements every year, and the advice I received was not to draft it as a right of first refusal on a sale, but rather a right of first refusal on retirement, because it better reflects what you are actually wanting to protect against and people are far more likely to honor it, pass word along to future buyers, etc . . . since not everyone wants to retire a horse or can. It’s not foolproof but it at least puts it out there that the horse will always have a place to go (and because it is a right not an obligation, if your circumstances change you aren’t locked in).
5 Likes
This is by far the best option I’ve seen. If you have SOLD the horse, you no longer have control of his future. The new owner has that with ownership of the horse. If you wish to retain control of the horse’s future, you do not sell the horse, you lease it and retain ownership. But if you offer the option of retirement for the horse, should that be necessary, that might happen. But it still might not happen if the horse is sold again rather than retired after the buyer you sold him to again sells him rather than retires him.
Leasing horses on PAID leases are quite common these days. Can be quite lucrative for the owner, AND you retain full control over your horse, AND get him back when he is ready to retire.
1 Like
If you horse is papered I’d include a note on her papers as well as the bill of sale offering a retirement home. I had one come back to me this way. She had been sold twice but each seller had kindly mentioned to the new buyer. Not foolproof but less intrusive than making it contractual which is (as above) hard to enforce anyway.
1 Like
It is a lovely sentiment but hard to track and follow. I actually had it when I gave my horse to a trainer in Wellington in the early aughts. Said I’d take him back if he couldn’t use him any longer. He sold horse. Then girl broke her arm/shoulder/some excuse, and he “lost track of what happened”. We tried on countless occasions to try to contact him and he either never responded or blew both myself and my parents off when they wanted to come see him. Lo and behold, horse ended up in a field, malnourished, in a rescue situation, and I found out YEARS later whenI came across him via a girl that was leasing him (this was when we were all still sharing horses show names as signatures/footers). So thanks to this very forum, I actually found him again, believe or not! The happy ending is that he was rescued and loved by an amazing family and that he MAY still be alive. If he’s still going, he’ll be in his mid-30s next month. I’ve stayed in distant contact with them and followed them a bit, so I know he’s had an amazing life and it makes me feel less guilty for turning him over to a total creep/rotten jerk… who is now dead. So at least he can’t screw over anyone else.
Moral of the story… the message as never passed along and some people really suck. With social media and paperwork, do everything you can do follow the horse. It’s a lot easier now with microchips and USEF records, but not a perfect science by any means.
Good luck and we’ve all been there… it’s tough, but just keep the faith that people have the best intentions and do your best to keep reiterating that she’s got a forever home, should she need to step down.
Same. I actually am in contact with the former owner, former trainer, and breeder of my current one. All have offered her a retirement home or soft landing, should she ever need it. It’s good when you have an incredible network and your horse has a fan club.
1 Like
