Exam T
OUTCOME OF THE CASE: LOOK BEFORE YOU STRIKE
his was a true “handshake” deal between two knowledgeable horsemen. The judge trusted her friend,
the trainer, and felt that she “knew” the horse from watching it compete for years. As a result, she did not conduct a pre- purchase exam or even go look at the horse before writing the check. And there was no bill of sale or sales contract. But this ended up working to the judge’s advantage, because it meant that the sale was not “AS IS,” and applicable law provided that the trainer had impliedly warranted that the horse was serviceably sound at the time it was delivered. The veterinarian’s testimony established that the horse was not serviceably sound, and thus the judge won that part of her case. The legal system worked as it should have, giving her
a basis to get her money back. She had the option of recovering the money she had spent maintaining the horse, but that would have required her to return the horse to the trainer. She opted to keep the horse instead – preferring to give it a good “forever” home rather than recover more money but have to return the horse. Unfortunately, the cost of litigating the case exceeded the value of the horse, and there was no basis for recovering
attorney’s fees. Why? To recover attorney’s fees, the judge would have had to prove that the trainer had committed fraud. While a fraud claim was made, the court ruled that the judge had no proof that the statement the trainer had made was false at the time it was made. In other words, when the trainer said the horse was doing piaffe, passage and tempi changes, there was no proof that this was an outright lie. Hence, no proof of fraud to the standard required by law was presented. The horse lived for several more years, turned out to
pasture at the judge’s farm. Surprisingly, he appeared to be quite comfortable—sometimes even galloping with the younger horses. While the vet stood by his assessment that it would be inhumane to ride the horse, he opined that the horse’s jubilant behavior in the field suggested that the horse had a high pain threshold and perhaps had in fact been ridden in the months prior to the judge’s purchase. He suggests, “No accounting for bad horsemanship. Maybe he didn’t notice the horse was lame?” The judge remained unconvinced that the trainer had not recognized the degree of the horse’s lameness at the point he took her check.
50 May/June 2013
Bar
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68