Okay, maybe this has been stated and maybe I’m on wrong thread, but who EXACTLY was at the pre-purchase? Were copies of x-rays made and given to client on a disk? Client could take disc home, look x-rays over, before deciding on buying pony.
I might honestly just be lost on this whole ordeal. Who knows. Please correct me if I’m wrong on anything.
[QUOTE=Portia;7021361]
Rate Your Horse Pro posted the complaint and invoices on their page, and the plaintiff, Mrs. Dilbendiwhatever (sorry, not taking the time to look up the spelling), responded in the comments, very politely. The sad thing is she said her daughter has been ostracized and treated badly by other kids at shows since she filed the suit. Kids can be cruel, but that’s the kind of behavior they learn from the adults.[/QUOTE]
To be clear: People are responding on the interwebz, but not on Facebook.
Facebook represents the worst and most stupid of over-sharing via the web, so I was just hoping to God people smart enough and rich enough to file suit (after spending a lot on other things) weren’t doing that. I cling to the idea that the world is kinda sorta a meritocracy, that’s all.
[QUOTE=Limerick;7020707]
I’ve puzzled and puzzled and now my puzzler is sore…why would Heritage release these invoices?? [/QUOTE]
I understood (from reading this thread only) that it was to show that they have billed for training and showing and such but have not billed for anything like being an agent or such.
And he will have to triple his prices to simply afford to live and eat.
Sometimes these price differences that people have their panties in a wad about are related to the entire economy in a certain area.
I am sure rent/food/gas/hotel/etc. cost more in Palm Beach than they would in back country South Dakota.
[QUOTE=trubandloki;7021495]
I understood (from reading this thread only) that it was to show that they have billed for training and showing and such but have not billed for anything like being an agent or such.[/QUOTE]
But the invoices include the commissions they charged the client. Wouldn’t that show they were an agent, or at least involved in the purchase in some way?
[QUOTE=comingback;7021535]
But the invoices include the commissions they charged the client. Wouldn’t that show they were an agent, or at least involved in the purchase in some way?[/QUOTE]
That was my question as well. Invoices show commission paid on this pony which would seemingly support the buyer’s argument that Heritage and the Trainer acted as an agent for the sale. And Heritage had to know that putting those invioces out there would, unrelated to this particular lawsuit, put them squarely in the middle of an already heated discussion about drugging at horse shows given the entirely ambiguous line items for HS Medications.
I’m struggling to see what they gained by releasing these invoices.
Did they volunteer the invoices or were they ordered by the Court to provide them?
[QUOTE=BaroquePony;7021588]
Did they volunteer the invoices or were they ordered by the Court to provide them?[/QUOTE]
As best as I can tell, Heritage voluntarily attached them to their motion to dismiss. Producing documents over discovery is different than attaching them to pleadings. A pleading is docketed and becomes public record for anyone to see (unless the case is sealed). Documents produced in discovery are turned over to the parties but they can be subject to protective orders that prevent disclosure beyond that.
[QUOTE=comingback;7021535]
But the invoices include the commissions they charged the client. Wouldn’t that show they were an agent, or at least involved in the purchase in some way?[/QUOTE]
Heritage seems to be taking the position that the allegations in the complaint state a claim ONLY against a SELLER of a horse. And as the trainer Heritage was not the SELLER. I’m going to refrain from commenting on the particular styling of the complaint.
Heritage is taking a narrow view of the complaint. I’m going to refrain from commenting on the wisdom of this approach to the litigation. FWIW Heritage seems to believe the invoice shows it is not liable for any of the claims set forth in the complaint.
All legal mumbo-jumbo aside, this whole thing smells funny to me for one main reason.
Top trainers don’t sell known problems into their own barn and program.
Which is why I’m skeptical of misdeeds by Heritage or collusion with the vet… they wouldn’t want to deal with a foundered pony in their program any more than any of us would. There are plenty of sound fancy green ponies out there for that $$$$.
Exactly, again, read post #120 and another by CBoylen.
[QUOTE=wanderlust;7021757]
All legal mumbo-jumbo aside, this whole thing smells funny to me for one main reason.
Top trainers don’t sell known problems into their own barn and program. Which is why I’m skeptical of misdeeds by Heritage… they wouldn’t want to deal with a foundered pony in their program any more than any of us would.[/QUOTE]
Or, to play devil’s advocate, they were well-aware of the pony’s health issues, and they didn’t want to see him end up in the wrong hands; they’d rather monitor him themselves as he is/was a good pony.
I have seen that scenario play out a couple of times, although the money on the line was more along the lines of free-lease plus training.
[QUOTE=wanderlust;7021757]
All legal mumbo-jumbo aside, this whole thing smells funny to me for one main reason.
Top trainers don’t sell known problems into their own barn and program.
Which is why I’m skeptical of misdeeds by Heritage or collusion with the vet… they wouldn’t want to deal with a foundered pony in their program any more than any of us would. There are plenty of sound fancy green ponies out there for that $$$$.[/QUOTE]
Unless (and this is pure speculation) you think you can manage the condition (and the owner’s pocketbooks will support that management) and the pony is nice enough to make it worthwhile.
Or if you think the buyer is enough of a rube that when the pony goes lame you’ll just throw it out and find her another one and get a second commission.
Or you had some hand in not discovering/treating the condition (or maybe you did something sloppy and actually contributed to the condition) and if the pony doesn’t sell and is sent back to the owner-- you think the owner’s going to come after you for breaking the pony on your watch.
[QUOTE=Pony+ an inch;7021767]
Or, to play devil’s advocate, they were well-aware of the pony’s health issues, and they didn’t want to see him end up in the wrong hands; they’d rather monitor him themselves as he is/was a good pony.
I have seen that scenario play out a couple of times, although the money on the line was more along the lines of free-lease plus training.[/QUOTE] For free lease, sure, no one is really losing anything if things go south. For $175k for a pony they don’t already own, and collusion with the vet to cover up the condition (i.e. fraud), not likely.
Especially since it was bought as a resale project. If it had really foundered, it was going to show up in the next pre-purchase.
While one might suppose that the trainers might have been so stupid (I dont think so) it is a real stretch to think that a veterinarian would jeopardize his/her career for such a relatively small (relative to his lifetime earning potential) amount of money. It seems like she needed someone to blame when the pony crashed.
[QUOTE=Jumphigh83;7021880]
While one might suppose that the trainers might have been so stupid (I dont think so) it is a real stretch to think that a veterinarian would jeopardize his/her career for such a relatively small (relative to his lifetime earning potential) amount of money. It seems like she needed someone to blame when the pony crashed.[/QUOTE]
Vet doesn’t HAVE to be incahoots with the cover up. Here’s the hypothetical…
Vet shows up for PPE. Buyer isn’t there. Only buyer’s agent is. Vet does the PPE, finds rotation. Tells buyer’s agent. Buyer’s agent never passes it along to buyer. Vet doesn’t send information directly to buyer. Maybe he should have, but he has longstanding relationship with buyer’s agent and assumes buyer’s agent will transmit the information. Vet walks away and doesn’t even know if the pony sold or not. Depending on his duty of care, the vet might still be responsible even if he was not actively part of the coverup. He may (and I am not saying he DID just that he MAY) have had an independent duty to transmit his PPE findings to the buyer.
Ah, but who is his client? The Buyer or the Buyer’s Agent? Who called and made the appointment? Whose check paid him? I forget the specific allegations in the complaint on this.
That’s why both the vet and the Agent were sued most likely. At least all the fingerpointing will be in one action.
[QUOTE=vxf111;7021891]
Vet doesn’t HAVE to be incahoots with the cover up. Here’s the hypothetical…
Vet shows up for PPE. Buyer isn’t there. Only buyer’s agent is. Vet does the PPE, finds rotation. Tells buyer’s agent. Buyer’s agent never passes it along to buyer. Vet doesn’t send information directly to buyer. Maybe he should have, but he has longstanding relationship with buyer’s agent and assumes buyer’s agent will transmit the information. Vet walks away and doesn’t even know if the pony sold or not. Depending on his duty of care, the vet might still be responsible even if he was not actively part of the coverup. He may (and I am not saying he DID just that he MAY) have had an independent duty to transmit his PPE findings to the buyer.[/QUOTE]
Generally speaking, communicating information to a party’s agent IS the same as communicating that same information to the party itself. An agent is simply a stand-in for the person for whom he/she is agent. It does depend on the scope of the agency, but it isn’t inconceivable that the information could have been appropriately communicated to the agent only.
[QUOTE=FineAlready;7021956]
Generally speaking, communicating information to a party’s agent IS the same as communicating that same information to the party itself. An agent is simply a stand-in for the person for whom he/she is agent. It does depend on the scope of the agency, but it isn’t inconceivable that the information could have been appropriately communicated to the agent only.[/QUOTE]
I’m not saying this is a winning claim. I was responding to the question “why would a vet put himself at risk by covering up PPE results.” I was just pointing out that the plaintiff might assert a claim (perhaps a claim that loses, but a claim nonetheless) that implicates the vet even if the vet was not part of a coverup.
[QUOTE=vxf111;7021970]
I’m not saying this is a winning claim. I was responding to the question “why would a vet put himself at risk by covering up PPE results.” I was just pointing out that the plaintiff might assert a claim (perhaps a claim that loses, but a claim nonetheless) that implicates the vet even if the vet was not part of a coverup.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I was responding to VR, not you. I agree with your assessment.
I.e., the client is always the buyer. But communicating information to the agent may be as good as communicating the same information directly to the buyer. The agent is never really the “client” of the vet.
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
