Loanee won't give my horse back

K

Kate35

Active Member
Joined
6 September 2009
Messages
36
Visit site
Leviathan said:
Jesus. I know read my post :rolleyes:


i SAID THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING IN THE PASSPORT ( IE NEW THING) WHERE YOU HAVE TO SEND YOU PROOF BY RECEIPT OF PURCHASE OR DOCUMENTS OF BREEDING TO NED.


That way the passport will be proof of ownership "ONLY" IF NED have the Receipts of proof . THEY then stamp your signature which is then a record of you owning horse , its not too hard to understand .

SO IF THERE IS NO STAMP on the proof of ownership. Then that passport is not proof ,but if you have the stamp then it is.

So simplified for you

when you purchase a horse

NED when they stamp the new owner they need a copy of the sales receipt before they stamp it and send it back.
Click to expand...

Cuffey, Leviathan, may I invite you to take a rein check so to speak. My understanding is that this post is concerned with a a permanent Loan Agreement that the Loaner now wishes to repudiate. May I suggest that we enter into another post to discuss further the subject of Horse Passports. I would have to say that I do consider that you are being rather unfair to the lady who corrected your quote "there has to be something done about this thing that Horse Passports mean nothing." A Horse Passport is not meaningless, it's purpose is however restricted to identification of a particular Horse, it was never intended nor will it ever be intended to be regarded as proof of legal ownership. That is the point that I made at the end of my reply and that is what the previous lady reiterated to you.
 
K

Kate35

Active Member
Joined
6 September 2009
Messages
36
Visit site
Luci07 said:
I am not a lawyer either but did study some contract law as part of another course years ago. The one thing I can remember if that a contract is voided if one person seeks to amend it. In this case, the horse was offered for sale, the other person accepted (in writing). This then terminates the original contract.

That is incorrect Luci07. The main purpose of the original Agreement continues to be performed, the Loaner's offer of the use and enjoyment of the Horse on a permanent basis to the Loanee at her expense.

When a Clause in a Contract is subject to variation this can be said to be achieved by actual performance but it is usually dealt with by way of an additional Deed executed by both parties that varies a clause but retains the original Agreement in it's entirety. These Deeds sometimes referred to as Riders are annexed to the original Agreement. They can either release a party from an obligation or simply vary a clause. In the event of a dispute and any change to the original Agreement regardless or whether it has been expressed in writing or implied by way of performance this could be considered to be what is known as a Collateral Contract, an additional Agreement that is deemed to run alongside the original Agreement. Neither apply in this case.

Arguably, the Loaner has presented the Loanee with an Option, but she is not obliged to accept as the orginal Agreement is still being performed and the Loaner has acknowledged that it is being performed satisfactorily. Without having sight of the Break Clauses, in particular the 3 month Notice period and the reason for termination which I have already said I suspect is solely concerned with the welfare of the Horse, the Loaner has no rights to rescind the Contract.

I would add that I have now had the opportunity to read and consider the Loaner's answers to all of the questions that have been put to her and I note there are a number of contradictions. In one answer the Loaner says that her financial circumstances have changed and she is now able to provide for and keep the Horse, in another she says that she can not afford to buy tack, and in another she says that she is now at University and just whats an end to this one way or another. In all honesty, if the Loaner is now at University, that indicates to me that her time and money are limited and given her remark that the "Loanne can afford it, she drives an Aston Martin," it's quite obvious to me that all that the Loaner wants is money and the Loanee has quite rightly refused because she is not obliged to hand over any money for the Horse whilst that Contract is still being performed.

The Agreement is said to be permanent but what happens if and I emphasise my usage of the word "if" the Loanee's circumstances change, for example, the Loanee suddenly loses interest in the Horse, the horse is no longer suitable for her requirements, the Horse becomes a lame duck so to speak for which the Loanee is not prepared to keep at her expense. Did that Contract include an Indemnity Clause to provide for such eventuality? That is why these Contracts need to be properly drafted which brings me to the sample BHS Loan Agreement that is the subject of some debate on another Post.

Perhaps the person who mentioned that they thought that they knew the Grandparents who owned the premises where the Horse is kept could directly or indirectly contact the Loanee and make her aware of this post and without prejudicing herself, invite her through a friend to put her side of the storey. I don't doubt that she has taken legal advice that takes the form of what I have already said.

Has any one heard further from the Loaner, could MHOL, subject to the Loaner's permission provide me with a copy of the Agreement, deleting names and addresses of all parties. I will quite happily provide my observations and comments upon it free of charge!
Click to expand...
 
A

Aimee and Tara

Member
Joined
31 July 2011
Messages
17
Visit site
Has she got her horse back yet? The owner hasnt been on here for ages. Sorry for the origanal post, it was my first post and i got scared and deleted it!!!!
 
M

MHOL

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 March 2009
Messages
479
Visit site
Kate35 said:
Luci07 said:
I am not a lawyer either but did study some contract law as part of another course years ago. The one thing I can remember if that a contract is voided if one person seeks to amend it. In this case, the horse was offered for sale, the other person accepted (in writing). This then terminates the original contract.

That is incorrect Luci07. The main purpose of the original Agreement continues to be performed, the Loaner's offer of the use and enjoyment of the Horse on a permanent basis to the Loanee at her expense.

When a Clause in a Contract is subject to variation this can be said to be achieved by actual performance but it is usually dealt with by way of an additional Deed executed by both parties that varies a clause but retains the original Agreement in it's entirety. These Deeds sometimes referred to as Riders are annexed to the original Agreement. They can either release a party from an obligation or simply vary a clause. In the event of a dispute and any change to the original Agreement regardless or whether it has been expressed in writing or implied by way of performance this could be considered to be what is known as a Collateral Contract, an additional Agreement that is deemed to run alongside the original Agreement. Neither apply in this case.

Arguably, the Loaner has presented the Loanee with an Option, but she is not obliged to accept as the orginal Agreement is still being performed and the Loaner has acknowledged that it is being performed satisfactorily. Without having sight of the Break Clauses, in particular the 3 month Notice period and the reason for termination which I have already said I suspect is solely concerned with the welfare of the Horse, the Loaner has no rights to rescind the Contract.

I would add that I have now had the opportunity to read and consider the Loaner's answers to all of the questions that have been put to her and I note there are a number of contradictions. In one answer the Loaner says that her financial circumstances have changed and she is now able to provide for and keep the Horse, in another she says that she can not afford to buy tack, and in another she says that she is now at University and just whats an end to this one way or another. In all honesty, if the Loaner is now at University, that indicates to me that her time and money are limited and given her remark that the "Loanne can afford it, she drives an Aston Martin," it's quite obvious to me that all that the Loaner wants is money and the Loanee has quite rightly refused because she is not obliged to hand over any money for the Horse whilst that Contract is still being performed.

The Agreement is said to be permanent but what happens if and I emphasise my usage of the word "if" the Loanee's circumstances change, for example, the Loanee suddenly loses interest in the Horse, the horse is no longer suitable for her requirements, the Horse becomes a lame duck so to speak for which the Loanee is not prepared to keep at her expense. Did that Contract include an Indemnity Clause to provide for such eventuality? That is why these Contracts need to be properly drafted which brings me to the sample BHS Loan Agreement that is the subject of some debate on another Post.

Perhaps the person who mentioned that they thought that they knew the Grandparents who owned the premises where the Horse is kept could directly or indirectly contact the Loanee and make her aware of this post and without prejudicing herself, invite her through a friend to put her side of the storey. I don't doubt that she has taken legal advice that takes the form of what I have already said.

Has any one heard further from the Loaner, could MHOL, subject to the Loaner's permission provide me with a copy of the Agreement, deleting names and addresses of all parties. I will quite happily provide my observations and comments upon it free of charge!
Click to expand...


Thanks for the offer of help, as it stands there may be something to report later today, i cannot comment until then. Perhaps we could run another contract past you in the future, can you email us your email address or look for me on Facebook missinghorsesonloan@googlemail.com, thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Luci07

Luci07

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 October 2009
Messages
9,382
Location
Dorking
Visit site
I think something else that has been really clearly demonstrated by posts such as this (and thanks for correcting me Kate, I was definately mis-informed!) that.. when we, as equine people, are dealing with issue with horses we must remember we are dealing with the "services" (by this I mean police/judges/law) who do not have our background knowledge or understanding. Therefore because we are basing our claim on our interpretations, it would seem that this is where we tend to go awry. So - one person says "horse stolen", other says "horse was given to me". Police say "civil matter" and walk away. We need to take (and I really do include myself in this), the emotion out of areas such as loan and really take a hard LEGAL look at the situation. Another example - I personally know someone who paid a lot of money for a saddle - from someone purporting to be a master saddler. Actually they weren't but there is a very large gray area - you would assume fully registerd but that was not (back then) the case. Saddle caused damage, saddler refused to refund or assist. Case went to court. Judge threw it out - why? it was a saddle, he didn't acknowledge or understand the difference using a master saddler would make and to him, it broadly fitted the horse. He had (and why should he) no understanding of the fact that saddles are vitally important!

This particular area of the forum has really opened my eyes as I would happily have made exactly the same assumptions/errors as others. It is also obvious from other postings that people are a lot wiser now and trying to really think ahead as to what constitutes a safe agreeent for them, their horse and their loaner.
 
N

Naryafluffy

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 October 2009
Messages
739
Location
Just outside Edinburgh
Visit site
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top