I don’t understand why you can’t get this. The pony is young and new. It doesn’t have a long and storied career. Its pretty, the hack winner, and jumps amazing. It could have potentially been the winner at Pony Finals. The purchase price was enormous for what it actually looked like on paper. There were a ton of fingers in that pie. If all had gone as planned the buyer/customer no doubt would have traded out and up to whatever was next. Either Heritage would own the pony or whatever outside professional would own it. It would still be fancy and could just be a lifetime lease pony. Somebody would make something. Its not that hard to visualize this scenario as there are tons of winning ponies out there that have flat out foundered and are lame and it is covered up. All the best ponies are foot blocked for pony finals and indoors. If you don’t believe it, just start asking around.
[QUOTE=vxf111;7021891]
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]
Why would a vet be obligated to give PPE findings to buyer and not his agent? If the agent isn’t trustworthy-- a proxy for the buyer chosen by him/her-- then what is it?
[QUOTE=Dorothy Gale;7021999]
All the best ponies are foot blocked for pony finals and indoors. If you don’t believe it, just start asking around.[/QUOTE]
Why would you want to nerve block what is presumably a 100% sound pony? That could lead to some pretty major problems down the road in terms of re-sale. The risks of that would outweigh the benefits, in my opinion. I think you’d come to find that people doing that are probably the exception and not the rule.
I may be oversimplifying this, and I am by no means an attorney, BUT, what I am hearing from the plaintiff is that the pony showed rotation on it’s PPE xrays. That was never communicated to her and conversely she was advised to continue with the purpose by her “agent” which is Heritage, who she accuses then of covering up this lame pony by all means necessary. That to me, seems to be the crux of the matter.
SO, if you’re Heritage, and you did not do anything wrong, why wouldn’t they (or the vet since I know they are not Heritages property) release the PPE X-rays? Am I missing something? Or are they not disputing the X-rays being bad, but are they saying they advised the client of this issue? Color me confused…
[QUOTE=mvp;7022008]
Why would a vet be obligated to give PPE findings to buyer and not his agent? If the agent isn’t trustworthy-- a proxy for the buyer chosen by him/her-- then what is it?[/QUOTE]
It would depend, in part, on the scope of the agency agreement (which may or may not have been a written document).
Someone can be your agent for some purposes but not others.
[QUOTE=Mayaty02;7022016]
I may be oversimplifying this, and I am by no means an attorney, BUT, what I am hearing from the plaintiff is that the pony showed rotation on it’s PPE xrays. That was never communicated to her and conversely she was advised to continue with the purpose by her “agent” which is Heritage, who she accuses then of covering up this lame pony by all means necessary. That to me, seems to be the crux of the matter.
SO, if you’re Heritage, and you did not do anything wrong, why wouldn’t they (or the vet since I know they are not Heritages property) release the PPE X-rays? Am I missing something? Or are they not disputing the X-rays being bad, but are they saying they advised the client of this issue? Color me confused…[/QUOTE]
From reading Heritage’s motion to dismiss (btw, not a lawyer either) I gathered that they are implying that this horse was purchased by the Dildabanians from Bibby Hill prior to the daughter ever coming to ride with Heritage.
They don’t expressly state that the pony doesn’t have rotation. For that reason and the absence of any clean x-rays being submitted with the motion to dismiss, I gather that the pony probably DOES have rotation, but Heritage is taking the position that the pony came to them with this pre-existing condition and that vet and seller (not Heritage) that sold the pony to the client were dishonest.
I’m not sure where the maintenance and treatment of the pony’s condition after it came to Heritage would fit into that equation.
[QUOTE=Mayaty02;7022016]
I may be oversimplifying this, and I am by no means an attorney, BUT, what I am hearing from the plaintiff is that the pony showed rotation on it’s PPE xrays. That was never communicated to her and conversely she was advised to continue with the purpose by her “agent” which is Heritage, who she accuses then of covering up this lame pony by all means necessary. That to me, seems to be the crux of the matter.
SO, if you’re Heritage, and you did not do anything wrong, why wouldn’t they (or the vet since I know they are not Heritages property) release the PPE X-rays? Am I missing something? Or are they not disputing the X-rays being bad, but are they saying they advised the client of this issue? Color me confused…[/QUOTE]
The x-rays will certainly be produced in discovery (and used extensively by both parties at trial if it goes that far), but not necessarily made publicly available. There probably wouldn’t be a lot of utility in attaching them to a pleading that would be publicly available because they will require expert testimony to explain them.
I’m a little surprised that the invoices were attached to a pleading that was publicly available, but the Heritage attorneys must have felt there was some value in attaching them.
[QUOTE=goodlife;7022029]
From reading Heritage’s motion to dismiss (btw, not a lawyer either) I gathered that they are implying that this horse was purchased by the Dildabanians from Bibby Hill prior to the daughter ever coming to ride with Heritage.
They don’t expressly state that the pony doesn’t have rotation. For that reason and the absence of any clean x-rays being submitted with the motion to dismiss, I gather that the pony probably DOES have rotation, but Heritage is taking the position that the pony came to them with this pre-existing condition and that vet and seller (not Heritage) that sold the pony to the client were dishonest.
I’m not sure where the maintenance and treatment of the pony’s condition after it came to Heritage would fit into that equation.[/QUOTE]
Gotcha, thanks for explaining!
[QUOTE=goodlife;7022029]
From reading Heritage’s motion to dismiss (btw, not a lawyer either) I gathered that they are implying that this horse was purchased by the Dildabanians from Bibby Hill prior to the daughter ever coming to ride with Heritage.
They don’t expressly state that the pony doesn’t have rotation. For that reason and the absence of any clean x-rays being submitted with the motion to dismiss, I gather that the pony probably DOES have rotation, but Heritage is taking the position that the pony came to them with this pre-existing condition and that vet and seller (not Heritage) that sold the pony to the client were dishonest.
I’m not sure where the maintenance and treatment of the pony’s condition after it came to Heritage would fit into that equation.[/QUOTE]
My reading of the motion to dismiss was that they were only claiming they were not the seller (which they weren’t), not that the were not involved in the sale. The invoices clearly show a commission charged on the purchase of the pony, so they’ll have a hard time proving they weren’t the buyer’s agent. According to their defense, the complaint only contained claims agains the actual seller, so the invoices may have been attached to show that they only charged for training/board/commission, and didn’t sell the pony.
If the pony was purchased before it ever had anything to do with Heritage, then who selected the vet for the PPE? You usually don’t do a PPE after purchase. If the Dildabanians chose him, that’s one thing. If Heritage selected the vet and arranged for the PPE without disclosing a client’s name and has a longstanding relationship with THAT vet, the vet would have no way of knowing that there was a client behind Heritage. Wouldn’t one want to know if Heritage had used that vet previously for horses on ITS OWN account? And who actually paid him? Looking at it from the vet’s point of view, that could be crucial as to his own duties.
[QUOTE=mvp;7022008]
Why would a vet be obligated to give PPE findings to buyer and not his agent? If the agent isn’t trustworthy-- a proxy for the buyer chosen by him/her-- then what is it?[/QUOTE]
Depends what agreement the buyer and vet have. If I hire the vet and have a contract with him that says he must report the findings to me directly, and he doesn’t, that might violate the contract.
If the agent says they’re my agent, but they’re not (or my agent for purchasing cars and planes but not ponies), and the vet communicates with them in lieu of me-- that might be a problem too.
We’re dealing in hypotheticals here. I wasn’t asserting that any particular claim WILL be supported by the facts here or WOULD be successful. I was just trying to answer the “why might this have occured” question ASSUMING (for the sake of the hypo) certain facts to be true.
Top trainers don’t sell known problems into their own barn and program.
They absolutely do. And why not? Get all they can out of the purchase and client (trainer is not the one paying the vet and farrier bills after all), and when the animal breaks, abandon the problem while making a commission on a new animal. Not a smart way to do business in terms of client satisfaction, it would seem, but it takes clients a long time to catch on, and there’s always a new sucker waiting in the wings. And before you say I’m not experienced with top programs, or I’m speculating, think again. This goes on all. the. time. It’s Monopoly money to the trainers. They just don’t care.
[QUOTE=Mayaty02;7022016]
I may be oversimplifying this, and I am by no means an attorney, BUT, what I am hearing from the plaintiff is that the pony showed rotation on it’s PPE xrays. That was never communicated to her and conversely she was advised to continue with the purpose by her “agent” which is Heritage, who she accuses then of covering up this lame pony by all means necessary. That to me, seems to be the crux of the matter.
SO, if you’re Heritage, and you did not do anything wrong, why wouldn’t they (or the vet since I know they are not Heritages property) release the PPE X-rays? Am I missing something? Or are they not disputing the X-rays being bad, but are they saying they advised the client of this issue? Color me confused…[/QUOTE]
You assume they HAVE the PPE x-rays. My gut feeling is that likely they vet has them?! He’s a party too.
But more likely Heritage has not made public the x-rays because they don’t have to present a factual defense at this stage of litigation. Right now they’re trying to get dismissed on legal grounds. IF that fails THEN they will be in a position to put on a factual defense.
[QUOTE=Jumper221;7022063]
My reading of the motion to dismiss was that they were only claiming they were not the seller (which they weren’t), not that the were not involved in the sale. The invoices clearly show a commission charged on the purchase of the pony, so they’ll have a hard time proving they weren’t the buyer’s agent. According to their defense, the complaint only contained claims agains the actual seller, so the invoices may have been attached to show that they only charged for training/board/commission, and didn’t sell the pony.[/QUOTE]
Maybe - but it seems like attaching the bill of sale would have been enough to prove that Heritage was not the seller, therefore no need to attach the invoices also.
[QUOTE=goodlife;7022029]
From reading Heritage’s motion to dismiss (btw, not a lawyer either) I gathered that they are implying that this horse was purchased by the Dildabanians from Bibby Hill prior to the daughter ever coming to ride with Heritage.[/QUOTE]
I have admitted the complaint is not a model of clarity. I disagree with your reading nonetheless. In the motion to dismiss, Heritage is asserting that they were not the SELLER and that all the complaint’s claims are only valid against the SELLER. I do not read the motion to raise the argument that the sale pre-dates the buyer being a Heritage client OR that Heritage was uninvolved in the purchase.
[QUOTE=vxf111;7022131]
I have admitted the complaint is not a model of clarity. I disagree with your reading nonetheless. In the motion to dismiss, Heritage is asserting that they were not the SELLER and that all the complaint’s claims are only valid against the SELLER. I do not read the motion to raise the argument that the sale pre-dates the buyer being a Heritage client OR that Heritage was uninvolved in the purchase.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, I believe you are correct. Hence why my legal career never panned out. 
[QUOTE=goodlife;7022141]
Ah yes, I believe you are correct. Hence why my legal career never panned out. ;)[/QUOTE]
LOL. Don’t feel bad. I was picking a sample complaint and motion to dismiss that were clear and easy to understand-- I would not be picking these
I wonder if insurance was on the pony with “loss of use”.
[QUOTE=FineAlready;7022025]
It would depend, in part, on the scope of the agency agreement (which may or may not have been a written document).
Someone can be your agent for some purposes but not others.[/QUOTE]
Of course. The duties of an agent can be limited and specific.
The complaint makes it sound as if Heritage was assigned a very broad version of that buyer’s agent job.
The insurance company’s xrays would be helpful if a loss of use claim was made to illustrate a timeline of the pony’s health history. I think most companies require xrays up front to get the insurance and then again to receive money from a claim. I may be wrong on all that, just asking…
