Explain loaning to me.

TarrSteps

TarrSteps

Well-Known Member
Joined
9 January 2007
Messages
10,891
Location
Surrey
Visit site
I have leased horses out over the years, with a contract, firm stipulations, and often an exchange of funds. But this idea of loaning horses still confuses me! I see the beauty of it when it works - horse gets a home, person gets a free horse - but what about when it doesn't??

I've seen a couple of situations where the horse has to be returned and yet the owner is not in a position to have it back. 'Blame' seems to fall on the person who has the horse on loan - how dare they break their commitment - but surely the whole point of loaning is that the owner maintains ultimate responsibility? If the person loaning wanted that responsibility surely they'd buy or otherwise assume ownership?

How do people see this? If you send the horse on loan do you continue to plan for the possibility of having the horse back? If you take a horse on loan do you assume you will continue to keep it if something happens to make the horse unsuitable or there is a change to your own situation?

If you are the owner do you think it's fair to either refuse to have the horse back or to guilt trip the other parties involved by saying you will be forced to pts?

What about degenerative conditions? Acute things, like injuries are easy to plan for and usually connected to custody. But what about degenerative conditions that may have started long before the loan?

I'm not referencing any particular situation, more wondering what people are thinking when they enter into these situations. Do you plan for eventualities or just hope it works out?
 
I've seen a couple of situations where the horse has to be returned and yet the owner is not in a position to have it back. 'Blame' seems to fall on the person who has the horse on loan - how dare they break their commitment - but surely the whole point of loaning is that the owner maintains ultimate responsibility? When a horse goes out on loan the owner should ALWAYS be prepared and ready to take it back at a moments notice.
If the person loaning wanted that responsibility surely they'd buy or otherwise assume ownership? Not if say its a pony that will be outgrown. The pony will go back to his family rather than be sold.

How do people see this? If you send the horse on loan do you continue to plan for the possibility of having the horse back?Always
If you take a horse on loan do you assume you will continue to keep it if something happens to make the horse unsuitable or there is a change to your own situation? No.....thats the point of loaning, although there are times when the loaner does keep the horse indefinately

If you are the owner do you think it's fair to either refuse to have the horse back or to guilt trip the other parties involved by saying you will be forced to pts? No....absolutely not. My horse, my responsibility. I also struggle with those who get a neglected horse back off loan. Its your job to check the horse is safe, cared for and in good shape in his loan home, and checks should be performed at acceptable intervals

What about degenerative conditions? Acute things, like injuries are easy to plan for and usually connected to custody. But what about degenerative conditions that may have started long before the loan?Your horse, you should be prepared to take it back or PTS if needed.

I'm not referencing any particular situation, more wondering what people are thinking when they enter into these situations. Do you plan for eventualities or just hope it works out?Plan for everything. That way you are never caught out, and the horse is not likely to suffer for it.
 
TarrSteps said:
I have leased horses out over the years, with a contract, firm stipulations, and often an exchange of funds. But this idea of loaning horses still confuses me! I see the beauty of it when it works - horse gets a home, person gets a free horse - but what about when it doesn't??

I've seen a couple of situations where the horse has to be returned and yet the owner is not in a position to have it back. 'Blame' seems to fall on the person who has the horse on loan - how dare they break their commitment - but surely the whole point of loaning is that the owner maintains ultimate responsibility? If the person loaning wanted that responsibility surely they'd buy or otherwise assume ownership?

How do people see this? If you send the horse on loan do you continue to plan for the possibility of having the horse back? If you take a horse on loan do you assume you will continue to keep it if something happens to make the horse unsuitable or there is a change to your own situation?

If you are the owner do you think it's fair to either refuse to have the horse back or to guilt trip the other parties involved by saying you will be forced to pts?

What about degenerative conditions? Acute things, like injuries are easy to plan for and usually connected to custody. But what about degenerative conditions that may have started long before the loan?

I'm not referencing any particular situation, more wondering what people are thinking when they enter into these situations. Do you plan for eventualities or just hope it works out?
Click to expand...
Unless the owner is prepared to sign over the horse to the loaner lock, stock and barrel and resign all claim to it, I wouldn't think that the owner can refuse to take the horse back. And if you put a horse on loan you must be prepatred to have it back otherwse why not sell him.

When I've had my horses on part loan I have written a contract based on the one you can get off the BHS web-site with my extras. I've always specified one months notice either way unless I was disatisfied with the care and attention my horse was getting in which, in extremis, I could take the horse back with no notice. This obviously was easier than it would be for many owners as I always made it a condition that the horse had to stay on his "home" yard.

As far as illness is concerned I've always been responsible for vet bills, shoeing, worming and teeth. This way I could be sure that it was done and done properly.

The sensible owner wishing to put her horse on loan makes the contract as iron-clad as possible.

Obviously, what was right for me and my horse wouldn't suit everyone's situation.
 
I wouldn't loan without having a back up plan if the animal had to come back. I suppose one might get complacent if the loan had been successful for a long period, and I mean years, but it would still be unwise.
Tell me though, when you lease a horse out, is the lessee, (sp?) obliged to keep the animal for the full term or is there a get out clause?
 
My horse is on loan to an equine college and the set up is perfect for both sides.
It means I still get to see her all the time and can stipulate tack etc.
I pay insurance but they pay for any minor vetinary things and jabs, teeth, wormer. If anything vetinary cropped up (touch wood) they pay and keep her if it's easy to sort (cuts, minor lameness, abscess rtc) and if anything long term she comes back to me and I sort it....I am owner, I choose to put her their to suit both our needs and she is my responsibility.
We have a contract and a 60 day notice period....if I want her back 60 days if they want to send her back 60 days which I think is fair. Of course if they weren't treating her properly I'd take her right away but don't see that as being a problem as the level of care is 5*.
I had a decision to either sell my horse before uni or put her on loan. I wanted her to have a secure future and wanted her for after uni so loan was my best option although I am still paying insurance and livery for the holidays.
If they needed to send her back I have a few options up my sleeve, I ride for a lady at a lovely yard that usually has a space but failing that my grandmother has a small retirement livery yard that I could put her at while I get something sorted.

I think owner has ultimate responsibility.
 
Ha I realised I didn't actually answer the question!
In answer I have planned for all eventualities and feel the owner always has that final responsibility.
Most people are capable of sorting livery etc short term for a returned horse and those that can't and are willing to guild trip the loaners perhaps should have sold the horse in the first place.
 
With a lease there is always a contract, usually with conditions set out under which the agreement becomes void.

When the horse in question is valuable and sought after though, the lease may be inviolate. There was a famous case in the US where a junior rider leased one of the most successful show hunters off all for an obscene amount of money, fell off it at the first show and missed the rest of the season! Too bad, so sad, they still had to pay.

Usually leases are annual or seasonal or, perhaps, to cover a period leading up to and including a big competition. The lease may get renewed but there is no obligation on either side to do so.
 
One place I worked we leased out a small string of ponies and horses, many suitable for people starting showing but also the kind quickly outgrown. In that case the lease did not last the whole year and the horses came home in between so we could make sure they were okay. Each contract (mine for my own horse was the same) dictated where the horse could live, listed agreed upon trainers etc. Mine basically said any significant decisions - everything from where the horse lived to who rode it, had to be passes though me. Practically, I never said no and rarely even raised an objection but it was the principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top