Trainer was dishonest

[SillyHorse]

You didn’t apologize, you wrote:

@mfglickman

Thank you, I hadn’t seen that far along the thread.

There was only one post between that and @skydy’s. Take a deep breath and chill.

[SweetestDownfall]

Horses sure aren’t for the faint of heart. I’ve unfortunately learned expensive lessons too

[punchy]

@jvanrens

@Horsegirl_s_Mom

@trubandloki

Because when you are a beginner, or you are buying your first horse, and your trainer says the horse is fine, you believe them and assume you are not feeling what you think you are feeling.

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.

I’m assuming you have heard of bute?

3/5 is pretty lame…and IME not conducive to disappearing with bute. Curious what the horse’s post-purchase vet records look like. I’m guessing the trainer’s friend, who she bought the horse from, knew how to keep the horse serviceably sound and shared that info with the trainer. But to go from 3/5 lame to sound on appearance with just bute I think is pretty unusual. Course there could be some discrepancies between what one vet calls 3/5 versus another vet. Neither here nor there—OP did nothing wrong and the trainer was dishonest.

[OverandOnward]

@RemarkableOwl21

If the horse is lame, lessons and shows are canceled, which means less money for the trainer…

In addition to what others have described above as ways to turn this further to the trainer’s advantage, some people are just very short-sighted on their gain in the moment. Dishonest people seem to often be in this category. They could do better if they worked for their own long-term good. But they don’t do that.

They have tunnel vision for the here-and-now, what they can get today, this week. People who live like this believe that some other scheme will come up in the future. They don’t worry about that right now.

Long-term, chicanery rarely pays off all that well. But people who live by it think differently, more immediately, than most of the people posting in this thread. That’s one reason cheaters may get away with cheats – other people can’t figure out how the cheater sees it as a good thing, and are therefore slow to believe it.

[OverandOnward]

The legal discussion veered off another way …

… I’m still curious to know if there is some action that OP could take re collusion between Trainer and Seller. That would pull the Trainer’s actions into the direct connection between Buyer and Seller.

Also, assuming the Trainer made commission on the sale, that means they are not a neutral advising party. Plus the other economic benefits that Trainer may have realized from duping Buyer into buying a lame horse.

Crediting the questions others have raised about how a lame horse is a benefit to the Trainer after the sale, when the Buyer is their board customer and lesson student, the gains of having a lame horse in the barn would be a further economic benefit that Trainer gained from duping Buyer into buying a lame horse.

[wanderlust]

@OverandOnward

… I’m still curious to know if there is some action that OP could take re collusion between Trainer and Seller. That would pull the Trainer’s actions into the direct connection between Buyer and Seller.

Also, assuming the Trainer made commission on the sale, that means they are not a neutral advising party. Plus the other economic benefits that Trainer may have realized from duping Buyer into buying a lame horse.

vxf11 will have more correct legal answers to this, but even if there was collusion between seller/trainer, the seller has no duty of care to the buyer, where the trainer/agent does. There may be a claim against the seller under UCC’s implied warranty of merchantability, but that depends on a variety of factors. It will also depend on the language of the bill of sale, especially if all warranties, express and implied, were disavowed.

Some good info here on sales laws:

Equine_Transaction_Laws-_An_Educational_Summary.pdf

[Eclectic_Horseman]

@OverandOnward

I’m still curious to know if there is some action that OP could take re collusion between Trainer and Seller. That would pull the Trainer’s actions into the direct connection between Buyer and Seller.

Also, assuming the Trainer made commission on the sale, that means they are not a neutral advising party.

It depends on the laws of agency in each state. In some places, the trainer can accept fees from both the buyer and the seller. I believe that couldn’t happen in a state like KY, where the TB industry has generated a lot of law on such issues.

[LaurieB]

@fivestrideline

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.

Something similar happened to someone I know. Non-horsey parents were convinced to buy a pony for their “very talented” 8 year old daughter. In a stroke of luck, the trainer knew just the right pony. The purchase was made and the child took lessons on her new pony for a month. Trainer then told the parents that the pony was lame and needed time off. Trainer said it would be a shame for the child to lose all the amazing progress she’d made, and convinced the parents to lease another pony until their own pony could be ridden again.

Two months later, the mother was speaking to the mother of a child in her daughter’s class. The other mother said, “Oh, are you the owner of “X” pony? My daughter loves that pony! She takes lessons on him every week.” It turned out that the pony the parents had purchased was being used as a full-time lesson pony, while their child rode the less-talented lease pony.

OP, I’m so sorry that happened to you. Unfortunately you’re not the only one who was taken advantage of by a trainer you trusted.

[OverandOnward]

@Eclectic_Horseman

It depends on the laws of agency in each state. In some places, the trainer can accept fees from both the buyer and the seller. I believe that couldn’t happen in a state like KY, where the TB industry has generated a lot of law on such issues.

No problem with that.

But if Trainer lied to the Buyer to increase Trainer’s own total takeaway, including in the months after the sale, does this move into the area of fraud and deceit? Legally?

The Trainer lied to get the Buyer to do something that the Buyer otherwise would not have done. For the financial benefit of the Trainer. If enough money was lost by the Buyer, it seems like there might be something open there for civil action, at least. Depending on the amounts.

[NaturallyHappy]

@AOHunter_s, I used to travel for business. My horse got whacked in the cannon bone somehow while I was out of town. Trainer put her on bute and told no one. The injury appeared to be very superficial. Trainer left for an away show. I took her to a local show- she was very sound and was never on bute even at horse shows. She was 3 legged lame in a day. Turns out she had been whacked so hard her cannon bone was bruised. Said trainer turned her out w a mare who didn’t get along w other horses without permission. Speculation was that my mare got injured when the other horse struck at her. That was the end of that relationship.

[Eclectic_Horseman]

I agree that a civil cause of action might exist for fraud, but again, state law may define it in such a way that it doesn’t fit these facts.

[vxf111]

@OverandOnward

… I’m still curious to know if there is some action that OP could take re collusion between Trainer and Seller. That would pull the Trainer’s actions into the direct connection between Buyer and Seller.

Also, assuming the Trainer made commission on the sale, that means they are not a neutral advising party. Plus the other economic benefits that Trainer may have realized from duping Buyer into buying a lame horse.

Crediting the questions others have raised about how a lame horse is a benefit to the Trainer after the sale, when the Buyer is their board customer and lesson student, the gains of having a lame horse in the barn would be a further economic benefit that Trainer gained from duping Buyer into buying a lame horse.

We really need to know the state to intelligently answer. The remedies assertion was so off that I think virtually no state would support rescission under these facts but this question of agency is one that very well could be different in FL vs NJ etc. Agency law is not uniform.

Another angle against the seller would be fraud/fraud in the inducement which doesn’t require a fiduciary relationship.

[vxf111]

The trainer is very likely to de deemed the buyer’s fiduciary (unless a contract between buyer and trainer to have the trainer find a horse disclaims the duty effectively, which seems unlikely), so any double dealing is going to breach the fiduciary duty.

The question whether any claim by the buyer lies against the seller is a different question. They are arms length parties (I assume, not being told otherwise) and OP has not said the seller lied about the horse/vetting results. The OP has said the trainer lied. If the seller lied then there could be a claim of some sort against the seller.

[candyappy]

@AOHunter_s

I bought a mare a few years ago, my trainer helped me find her, she came from a friend of hers. It was my first horse purchase, so I was very inexperienced with the whole process. I did have a vetting done complete with X-rays that my trainer was present for. I very naively allowed her to relay the results to me and never spoke directly to the vet.

So it sounds like the trainer was there on your behalf? You were not there at all for the PPE/ vetting ?

I would at least consult an attorney who is experienced in equine law and see if you have any options.

[EmilyM]

It sounds like you learned a very important and unfortunately expensive lesson. Although there may be legal recourse (I have no idea), consider what you might get out of the trainer if you win any sort of settlement, etc. Possibly not worth it.

Hopefully, you have found another trainer. I would encourage you to be present for vet appointments as much as possible. It’s usually a great learning opportunity, and it makes it easier to make decisions for the benefit of your horse.

I’m sorry this happened to you and for your horse’s prognosis. Best of luck. I hope this doesn’t deter you from future horse ownership. Quite honestly, even when everything goes “right” with a PPE, lameness happens. . .cuz. . .horses.

[skydy]

That’s horrible.

I hope the experience didn’t drive them away from horses altogether.

[Alterration]

So first, I’m sorry that your horse has a career ending injury. That’s devastating and always a major bummer.

Secondly, it’s hard to tell from your description what Trainer did and did not know. There are x-ray findings that look bad but mean nothing at all. It’s entirely possible that Trainer had a horse with x-rays just like yours, and it turned out fine.

Thirdly, while I know you’re saying that you never had a conversation with Trainer about said x-rays…is there any chance Trainer could say “I had a conversation with Client on x day and she said to go forward with the purchase regardless”. Could it be that Trainer did say something but it wasn’t understood by Client at the time (veterinary jargon) and thus forgotten? I think you’d have a hard time proving that Trainer didn’t tell you anything about the findings in a lawsuit unless it was written down that the Trainer found the xrays unremarkable.

I’m not saying this because I think any of that necessarily happened - it could be that Trainer is rotten and meant to scam you, I’m just not sure how far a lawsuit could go in this matter because there are so many plausible reasons for this to have occurred.

Have you spoken with Trainer about it? I’d be curious as to their take on the matter. That’s the one thing that I don’t see represented here at all. I think I might be inclined to phrase it as - you know Trainer, sadly we had to retire Fifi because of . The vet says that he thinks she might have already had it - is this something the vet missed in the PPE?

By putting the onus on the original vet, Trainer should not feel attacked and you can maybe get some perspective.

Otherwise, definitely get your own records, and always be present for a PPE.

[LaurieB]

@skydy

I hope the experience didn’t drive them away from horses altogether.

Fortunately, it did not. But they did change trainers.

[DMK]

If the horse was in full care that very same trainer was quite likely to make sure it had bute when it was being ridden.

[DMK]

Not necessarily. It depends on where/how the horse was 3/5.

3/5 after flexions could be barely a 2 the rest of the time. 3/5 on a tight circle on a hard surface could, again, be barely a 2 on a good surface with big sweeping turns. And even if it was none of those things, if the 3/5 was on the outside leg on a circle, that’s the sort of lameness that is really hard for a beginner to feel. Any of those plus bute and trainer gaslighting, yes I can see how the problems were not readily apparent to a beginner for a while, at least. And we haven’t even touched on bilateral 3/5…