Follwing OpalFruits posts - deposits..

At 15?

  • Total voters
    0
Why the duplication of post?
confused.gif
 
I think it is a case of lesson learned. Selling horses is stressful and crap, and I live by my mum's rule: Never refuse a viewing, never take it off of the market and don't let the horse go until you have the full amount, in cash in your hand. If I were giving a deposit for a horse subject to veting, and the horse failed vetting, then I would expect my deposit back.
 
[ QUOTE ]
A massive ammount see a deposit as non refundable..

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless it failed the vetting, that is the one and only reason a deposit should be refundable IMO
 
Oh I'm sorry, they had agreed a deposit regardless on the vetting outcome? In that case I think it is the potential buyer that is foolish. OF- until you sell your mare I wouldn't refuse viewing for anyone, if they like the horse enough they will have to have the competition.
 
Yes the deposit was agreed as non refundable - permenantly!
Yes i wont be so naive again, I hate selling at the best of times!
 
I'm quite sure the purchaser wouldn't have agreed to the deposit being non refundable even if the horse failed the vetting. I would imagine there was a misunderstanding between vendor and buyer, unless the buyer was extremely dense, in which case I'm failry sure they would be entitled by law to go back on such a daft agreement. There was no written contract/agreement and the horse failed the vetting - the buyer was 100% entitled to her deposit back imo.

If you look at it another way, you could make quite a bit of money on a horse that wouldn't pass a vetting, if you put it up for sale at a fairly cheap price, took deposits not refundable even if it fails so you got to kep the money - it's ridiculous to suggest that the buyer shouldn't get her deposit back.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yes the deposit was agreed as non refundable - permenantly!
Yes i wont be so naive again, I hate selling at the best of times!

[/ QUOTE ]

I would just stick to the normal deal, refundable only if failed vetting and keep a list of everyone who is interested after the deal is made, of course when a vetting is failed, it's like rats leaving a sinking ship
smile.gif
 
I'm afraid the way I see it is that once the deposit is down its down. If I was buying and the horse failed the vet I wouldn't expect my deposit back. I put it there to serve a purpose - to hold the horse.

On a different note deposits on foals - if you place a deposit down on a foal and it died before weaning its your loss, legally you shouldn't expect the deposit returned.
 
[ QUOTE ]
They must have been thick then, or maybe people from that far north dont understand english..??

[/ QUOTE ]

How far north?

*gets ready to throw something at Opal*
 
[ QUOTE ]
They must have been thick then, or maybe people from that far north dont understand english..??

[/ QUOTE ]

That's more than a bit nasty IMHO!
shocked.gif


Until then I was sympathising with you now I'm not so sure.

Deposits should be taken in cash; as you've proved here, a cheque can be withdrawn BUT if it was subject to vetting, then the whole amount should be returned. If it was subject only to them changing their minds (say they weren't having a vetting) and thereby wasting your time then I would keep it to pay re advertising costs. But also, anyone sensible who is selling a horse takes names and numbers of other prospective purchasers just in case, surely even if you have taken horse off the market at least until that horse is signed and paid for?
 
I can see both sides to this argument (sits on fence).
Firstly, I cannot understand why anybody would put down a deposit on a horse subject to satisfactory vetting and then agree that the deposit was non-refundable. The whole idea of putting down a pre-vetting deposit is that it shows good faith on behalf of the would-be purchaser, and the seller holds the horse until the vetting. If the horse fails the vet, then the deposit is returned in full. If the purchaser changes their mind, then the deposit is kept by the seller. In this case, it is further complicated by the fact that the would-be purchaser moved the "goal posts" by having a horse being sold as a happy hack vetted as a potential pre-novice eventer. Opalfruit has stated that the horse's sale price is under £1k and is being specifically sold as a happy hack so most people (if they bothered with a vetting) would only have a basic 2 stage.
I have been messed about in the past with people who have agreed to purchase subject to vetting - you hold the horse for them and never hear another word. After that time, on the couple of occasions that I have sold horses, I have always insisted that it is the first person that pays the cash, buys the horse and I have not accepted any deposits.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yes the deposit was agreed as non refundable - permenantly!
Yes i wont be so naive again, I hate selling at the best of times!

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll be lucky if you sell it at at all in my opinion if its conformation is that crap! God, I hate rude Southerners!!
 
Maybe the buyers knew that by paying their deposit by cheque they could then cancel it later if horse failed vetting, that way they could stop further viewings but also have "1st refusal" almost.....

Luckily the only time I sold a horse, they gave me a cash deposit and didn't vet him anyway so no hassle of that.
 
your questions are very leading, as I am sure was the intention. Normally if the BUYER backs out for their own reasons the deposit would be non refundable. If the SELLER backs out or the horse is not able to be sold (for whatever reason illness/failed vetting/dies/etc) then of course the SELLER MUST refund the deposit
 
I think that deposits seem to cause more problems than they solve. I have never yet agreed to pay a deposit because they just pave the way for disputes. Under no circs would I agree to a deposit that wasn't refundable if the horse failed the vet. I have been in plenty of situations where I was put under pressure to pay a deposit and instead moved incredibly quickly to avoid anyone beating me to the horse. My current horse was advertised in H&H on a thurs, I tried him on the thurs night, had him vetted on friday and paid for and collected him on Sat.

When I sold a horse for my husband it was all done on trust. The people said they wanted him so I cancelled future viewings but kept the viewers numbers. I then took him up to their vet (about 60 mile journey) to be vetted. Fortunately he passed and they took him on home from there. They didn't have their cheque book with them so we agreed they could post it on to me, which they did straight away. I hasten to add that this was a hunter and the hunting fraternity is incredibly straight as it is such a small world, with everyone knowing each other somehow or other. Had it been my eventer, I may not have been quite so trusting.

I have been in the business of selling houses for years so I tend to get a good feel for when people are honest and decent and when they're not. If they're not honest/decent i would be longing to find another home for the horse and would forgo losing them as a purchaser in order to find a good home.

If i were to pay a deposit for a horse, I would certainly want a written contract to go with it because otherwise, it is impossible to ascertain how the legally binding contract should be resolved.
 
Well I would have previously agreed with you that people in the hunting fraternity are straight, but having been seriously stitched up over the purchase of a pony by not just any hunting person but a field master of a leading hunt, despite my having made it very clear that we knew all sorts of people in common, I now find I don't trust anyone like I used to.... it is such a shame but people will be people, and some just aren't straight no matter who they are, or what their connections are.. I do however believe in trusting your gut instinct and from now on will do so; I didn't like this particular seller from the start so more fool me!
 
Life (and this situation) are not as black-and-white as this poll.
 
I could only answer your first question as the others didn't make sense.

I think it was wrong of OF to even let them vet the horse in the first place when she knew all along that it would fail. She should think about all the money that she has cost them when she starts talking about a weeks livery - what's that £20? Compare that to the £200 they paid for the vetting.

If I had been looking at the horse and OF started spouting all the conditions associated with her deposit I would have walked away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top