Horse ownership query - legalitles

I would still say that if up till the point it was sold, it had been 50/50 then they are still entitled to half the proceeds. Shouldnt matter who is caring for it now as it has been sold!
 
Surely if C bought horse which they knew B half owned, if they had any decency, they would have paid half to A, half to B or were they told it only belonged to A? Doesn't matter that B is still looking after horse, that had nothing to do with the original deal with A did it? Is B still using the horse as their own as it was before A sold out? Also, did A only sell A's share to C, not the whole horse - if that makes any sense, or did they get the full price and just haven't paid anything to B for their share?
Ultimately, I believe it is up to A to pay B their share - if they didn't only sell their (A's) share.
Either way, it's a sad set of circumstances that this couldn't have been talked over before it was done. A was not to know if B would have liked or been able to buy them out if they had talked about it.
Devious springs to mind!
 
Well I would say that if B wanted to take it to court then they might have an entitlement, as it was sold without consent... BUT im doubting it would get that far unless B has a massive attachment to the horse.

Horsey should never of been sold without B's consent, and C should realise this.
 
I would imagine that unless there is some kind of contract between A & B regarding any future selling of the horse then A can only sell 50% interest in the horse because that is all A owns. C may be under the impression that they have actually bought the horse but in reality have only purchased a 50% share, but probably paid the full price of the horse.

I think that this matter needs to be put in the hands of a solicitor who would be able to advise you correctly though.
 
Yes it was devious!

A sold horse to C and haded over passport with the view that horse in entirety was sold to C, not the 50% share. B is still riding/using/caring for horse as before as they do not see that their share has been sold as they did not agree nor know about the sale tuntil after the it happened.

B has not received anything - although he still has full care of a shared canine companion as A does not have the accommodation for it.

C fancies themselves as a bit of a 'dealer' when it comes to horses, and as C owns the yard th horse was stabled at, and B works there and A&B both lived there C had ample opportunity to talk to A & B regarding sale, but it was done quickly and behind B's back!
 
An issue here is whether C knew that B owned half the horse. If C knew or in fact "ought" to have known then C would have been put on notice of the unconscionable behaviour or indeed illegality of the sale and the contract between the parties would be vitiated (or void) ab initio. If that makes sense. Basically if C knew then he is screwed.

Either way there should have been a contract in place between A and B and a contract does not HAVE to be in writting so B could still bring a claim against A (but probably not C as there is no legal relations between them). Hope that is of help and makes sense - I confuse myself sometimes!
 
B really needs to sit down with C and explain that they have only bought 50% of this hoss, as it was sold without consent.... and that B still owns the other 50%. If that causes a prob then C needs to take the matter up with A....
 
Regardless of whether B is accepting sale of horse or not, what were the arrangements before this kicked off; were they paying C for livery? If that is the case (they were paying) I would feel it would be better to continue paying if they still intend or are able to use the horse because otherwise they will have a big bill at the end which might add up to more than their share was worth - but I am amazed that C bought the whole horse and is still allowing B use of it; I would understand if C had only A's share. That sounds as if C is being devious as well!
I would strongly advise that B has talk with C to clear this up and meanwhile batters their share of the proceeds from A!
A has acted disgracefully.
As to the other horse A and B share, another way to go would be (if values were similar and they wanted to of course) for B to take complete ownership of horse and not pay any money to A as payment of their share of first horse. Other than that, I would be sending that horse back to A and let them cope; after all, it seems they started this fiasco so let them do something instead of B all the time. Lord, it's a complicated life up there!
If it can't be worked out amicably then I would be off to a Citizens Advice (do you have them up there>) or a solicitor, armed with photo's, any bill stubs, anything relating to the involvement with the horse that would show their entitlement. It might be that they need to take A to small claims court or something.
 
A and C sound horrible people - I think B should look for another job and threaten/bring legal proceedings against the other two - sometimes just a well written letter will scare them enough into acting reasonably again!
 
I have a feeling that solicitors may come into it! The other fore legged friend is a canine, not a equine.

I have only known all 3 for a few months, but my overall impression of A is not favorable, B is good and C - well I try not to pi$$ them off.

Unfortunately I am not meant to know of this issue (although I believe a good number of folk on the yard do, yet are all sworn to keeping their traps shut!), I am just always interested in issues of ownership (stems from doing contract law at college) and it was talked over with me and a friend of B last night, and I basically I said what was said here - all though not as eloquently - so hopefully that will filter down to him and he will take action to get either £ or part of the horse.
 
Just one other point, holding the passport is not proof of ownership, it is held by the person looking after the horse which is not necessarily the owner.
 
Well do let us know the outcome even if it's a way off. You have some different rules and laws up there so it will be interesting (and educational) to find out how it's settled.

I wish B all the luck in the world - and after it's settled, either way, I would be after another job!

It just goes to prove that however much you are friends with someone, if you go into an agreement with them, then it has to be down in writing, preferably carbon copied and both signing each copy at the very least
 
I will do!

I seem to be hearing a lot of issues regarding Passports and ownerships - one friend was ORDERED by the person who sold her a young colt to return the passport to her or she would come and collect the horse! So the poor girl returned it, without taking a photocopy. I've said she needs to contact the transporter as he should have the passport number (shouldn't he?) and so she can order a replacement. This one rang alarm bells as the seller of the youngster is rather unscrupulous and takes advantage of people. She sells quite a few horses a year so I believe that makes her a dealer?
 
OoH! That's a whole new can of worms isn't it? Why on earth would dealer want the passport back for - don't tell me, I don't think I want to know! Until it happens to you, you don't think about it but,yes, photocopy everything. I lost a passport application along with sketch, covering certificate etc and learnt from my mistake. Just last night, Forester put up a post about losing all her registration details in the post and what it would cost because they will all have to be done again. If you have to send passports anywhere I always use recorded delivery too, worth the bit extra for peace of mind alone, at least you know it got there - or didn't as the case may be but you do have some comeback especially if you tot up what that passport is worth to you (original sketch, covering certificate, vacc's record and the cost of having them done again if necessary!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top