I think you left out the word “not!”
4 Likes
That can be true. But 3/5 lame is pretty lame. That’s where I’d expect even other onlookers at the barn to notice something awry.
6 Likes
Yes! Clearly I did 
4 Likes
I didn’t feel any lameness those first few rides after I brought her. I’m wondering now if my previous trainer medicated her those first few weeks. Not something I would have ever imagined my trainer doing at the time, but after this experience, who knows how else I’ve been misled
21 Likes
I’ve read all your updated info. A 3/5 lameness on the PPE, that vet says he recommended against purchasing, but your trainer still decided that it was The Horse For You. How convenient it came from her friend’s barn. (Yes, I am that cynical).
Again, I am so sorry.
You’re certainly doing the right thing for your horse by finding a retirement facility. Hopefully Karma will reward you and send a truly suitable horse your way.
19 Likes
I see. I’m very sorry this happened. It’s horrible to have to re-examine everything that happened and question how far the trainer might have gone.
2 Likes
Thats not being cynical, thats stating the obvious and oft repeated con pulled on horse owners. 
11 Likes
More logical than cynical. From a trainer’s POV, why lie to get a deal done on a horse with such a poor PPE? You’re just opening yourself up to liability and blame if/when the horse breaks, no benefit to you. Unless of course there’s a quick buck to to be made with your friend’s help 
The horse industry really never fails to disappoint, does it?
7 Likes
Specific performance, i.e. returning the horse or unwinding the transaction, rather than monetary compensation, is a very, very unlikely outcome here.
One, the trainer, who was the one breaching fiduciary duty to the client, did not own the horse, so it can’t be returned to her.
Two, the owner, even though a friend of the trainer, was not the agent of the buyer. So while they may have misrepresented the horse’s soundness when trying it, that’s what the prepurchase is for.
Not a lawyer, just used to live with a very good one for many years.
8 Likes
These are far-fetched possibilities at best.
1 Like
I agree. This is a question of state law and unless we missed it I don’t see the OP saying what state law would apply, but it is not common anywhere that I am barred or familiar with that the remedy for breach of fiduciary duty would be unwinding of the contract. That just doesn’t make sense. The breach of fiduciary duty here is by the trainer not the seller. But the contract is between the OP as buyer and the seller. The breaching party, the trainer, is not a party to the contract (given the facts we’ve been told). Returning the horse to the seller wouldn’t make any sense as a remedy for a breach by the OP’s trainer who was acting as the OP’s agent. The usual remedy for this sort of scenario would be an award of money damages to be paid to the OP by the trainer (and the OP would keep the horse).
12 Likes
Hypothetically speaking, a case with the same facts (3/5 lame, Vet said don’t purchase, Trainer misrepresented), could anything be done about collusion between Trainer and Seller?
There are three main characters in this story: Buyer, Seller, Trainer. Trainer & Seller have a connection as friends and business associates. Trainer is also an advisor to the Buyer. Trainer is the connecting link who brought Buyer and Seller together.
Did the Trainer get any financial compensation from the sale – commission, expenses, paid time? I have known Trainers in this same role to be compensated for all the tasks of being the go-between, sometimes in addition to a commission. As part of the Trainer’s business of finding horses for their students. Advising the Buyer, finding the horse, accompanying Buyer to tryouts, arranging the PPE, etc.
3 Likes
Maybe actually read the OP next time to avoid the meanie vibe.
9 Likes
I’m so sorry, OP. That is truly terrible on the part of your former trainer.
This makes me wonder though. Aside from some shitty trainers who want to make a quick buck, wouldn’t many trainers be disinclined to have their client buy a lame horse, or one with problems on the horizon? If the horse is lame, lessons and shows are canceled, which means less money for the trainer…
1 Like
I’ve personally had it happen a long time ago and seen it happen.
Client buys Horse 1 (trainer gets some sort of kick back: double commission, splits the excess, owed a favor, skims off the top). Horse 1 comes up lame or is impossible to ride, Horse 1 put on rehab or training board and trainer “just so happens” to have Horse 2 to lease “in the meantime”. For a steal of course, just board and lessons or some cheap lease fee “cause the trainer really wants to keep the client in the saddle”. Trainer gets the kick back, double board, still gets lesson income and showing income, etc etc.
17 Likes
To go along with the great example above there is also the thing where board includes some lessons, so the owner would be paying for the lessons anyway.
3 Likes
A good attorney would certainly discuss possible outcomes, good and bad, with the OP after reviewing the facts in the case.
So you are not performing the service you think you are.
Also, “sending a horse” to slaughter is quite difficult in the US at this moment, so while horses certainly do end up in bad situations, and some do end up in trucks headed to Mexico and Canada, it’s not a terribly likely scenario.
5 Likes
I’m assuming you have heard of bute?
10 Likes
Or trainer convinces rider to buy a horse a bit above their ability and thus insures the trainer will have a horses to train [$$$] and show for a while or forever
If the buyer understands the horses is not quite yet suitable, that’s one thing.
If they are in the dark about this though…
8 Likes
And quoting me, too! Cause piling on to agree with others after I already and nearly immediately apologized was not enough for you. [edit]
