Exam T
OUTCOME: BILLING GONE AWRY
he trial court found that the owner was lawfully entitled to reclaim possession of the stallion at the
conclusion of the lease term, and dismissed the profes- sional’s claim for additional compensation. The profes- sional appealed the dismissal of her compensation claim under a quasi-contract theory of unjust enrichment. The appellate court reviewed the trial court’s deter-
mination that the professional had failed to establish what benefit she had conferred on the stallion’s owner that would entitle her to additional compensation. The appellate court noted that the professional and her expert witness “testified that much of [the stallion’s] value was dependent upon his breeding potential, which in turn depended in large part upon whether his semen could be successfully frozen. Although [the professional] testified that [the stallion’s] semen had been successfully frozen on one occasion, [the owner’s trainer] testified that two different veterinary hospitals had advised her that [the stallion’s] frozen semen would not be viable. Given the conflicting testimony regard- ing whether or how well [the stallion’s] semen could be frozen, the circuit court’s determination that there was
insufficient evidence to establish the value of the horse was not clearly erroneous. Additionally, the circuit court made a point of noting that [the professional] owned offspring of [the stallion] as a result of the lease. The fact that [the professional] had already reaped the ben- efit of owning at least two more horses who were show- ing signs of being able to compete at the Grand Prix level suggests that, even if [the stallion’s] value had ex- ponentially increased due to [the professional’s] efforts, it was not inequitable for [the owner] to keep that value when [the professional’s] efforts also benefited herself.” The dismissal of the professional’s claims for addi-
tional compensation was affirmed on appeal. In an unrelated, but similar, case, a trainer submitted
a bill to a client after they had a falling out. The trainer’s bill was for previously unbilled services that the trainer claimed had been rendered to the client over a ten year period. In that case, the court held that the trainer’s delay in submitting the bill for payment was “decep- tive.” In that case, the trainer’s claim for the previously unbilled services was also denied.
Get Your Daily Fix
Marne Martin-Tuckerand Royal Couer 2 (Royal Hit x Riva by Le Coeur) Competed for USA at the 2011 FEI World Breeding Championships for
Young Dressage Horses
“I have had my horses insured with Mary Phelps/ Markel for years. As an Amateur competing up to Grand Prix, the personal service provided by her office, availability and superior support from Markel, have provided me with the peace of mind while protecting my horses in Europe and the USA.” – Marne Martin-Tucker
©
PhelpsPhotos.com Take an Online Insurance
Tour with Mary Phelps A Markel Equine Insurance Specialist
horsesdaily.com 46 May/June 2014 1-800-572-3286
mary@horsesdaily.com Follow us on Twitter
http://twitter.com/dressagedaily
Bar
The #1 Spot on
the WWW for Sport
Horses For Sale!
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