Negotiating on price during trial - WWYD?

[FestiveFuzz]

Right so I've had my horse on trial for the last 3 months and all being well am due to purchase him in January. Before me he has spent most of his time in the field doing very little as his owner lost interest, so when I took him on trial he literally came with just a saddle and bridle.

A couple of weeks back the horse started acting up and bucking and broncking when ridden. The physio came out and recommended a 6 week course of physio to ascertain whether it's a muscular issue caused by an ill-fitting saddle or something else. I've also had the saddler out who confirmed that the tree is twisted and it'll cost more to repair than it would to replace the saddle, so we're now looking for a new saddle.

The sellers have offered to speak with the owner and see whether they are happy to split the cost of the new saddle and take it off the final purchase price of the horse, but I'm wondering whether i'd be out of line to ask for a reduction in price to account for the physio treatment?

The way I see it horse would not be rideable or sellable without the treatment and is only in this position due to the broken saddle it came with rather than anything that's occurred whilst it's been in my care but I don't want them to think I'm taking the P.

I've bought a full wardrobe of rugs, had it vaccinated, teeth checked etc. and would never expect them to foot the bill for any of this as it's just part of owning a horse, but with the physio treatment I'm not sure whether there's scope to use it in negotiations.

So...would you be expecting a reduction in asking price due to physio treatment/buying a new saddle?

 

[*hic*]

Playing devil's advocate here - I'd have considered it only sensible to check saddle fit before using any saddle on a horse that had been doing nothing and suspect the owner may feel that you caused the issue by using ill-fitting tack.

If you agreed a price for the tack I'd expect a corresponding reduction for a useless saddle and you should return the saddle to the owner, however I don't see why the owner should be expected to pay for damage caused by your not checking the tack or for a new saddle.

 

[nix123]

In a word Yes. I would tell them whats up with the horse then say you will buy it if A, they take the price of a new saddle off the asking price (like for like of course) and you return the saddle which doesnt fit. B, get a written estimate for the phyio treatment and ask them to take the amount off the asking price. If they will split the difference of a new saddle, i would keep the saddle and you may be able to use it as part exchange for the new one. If its a flat no from them i would seriously consider walking away. Like you said they will be left with an unrideable horse to sell.

 

[jrp204]

Maybe the saddle did fit while he did very little and possibly had less muscle? I would change the saddle first, this may sort the problem, if not you could then approach the sellers about the physio since it is technically still their horse until you pay for it. I wouldn't expect a horse to come with a saddle anyway so would cost this in when purchasing a horse.

 

[lastchancer]

To be honest if I were the owner I'd just fetch the horse back. If you've had it 3 months then any changes for better or worse are most likely down to you. Like wise, if I agreed to loan a horse out that was unbroken, and they broke it in and schooled it, I'd only expect to sell it to them for it's value prior to training.

 

[putasocinit]

Agree with lastchancer

 

[FestiveFuzz]

Playing devil's advocate here - I'd have considered it only sensible to check saddle fit before using any saddle on a horse that had been doing nothing and suspect the owner may feel that you caused the issue by using ill-fitting tack.

If you agreed a price for the tack I'd expect a corresponding reduction for a useless saddle and you should return the saddle to the owner, however I don't see why the owner should be expected to pay for damage caused by your not checking the tack or for a new saddle.

Sorry I should have mentioned I was assured the saddle had been checked and fitted before I took the horse on trial as his original saddle had been stolen recently. In the time I've had him he's not done much either (certainly not enough to change shape) as I was finishing off plans for our wedding and was then away on honeymoon, but in hindsight I really wish I'd checked his saddle sooner.

 

[dogatemysalad]

Agree that the saddle should have been checked in the beginning and again as he started to get fitter. It's part of taking on a new horse, particularly one that has been out of work or doing very little.

As the tree is twisted, I'd ask for the value of the original saddle to be taken off the purchase price.

 

[FestiveFuzz]

To be honest if I were the owner I'd just fetch the horse back. If you've had it 3 months then any changes for better or worse are most likely down to you. Like wise, if I agreed to loan a horse out that was unbroken, and they broke it in and schooled it, I'd only expect to sell it to them for it's value prior to training.

Wow that was a bit unnecessary! Owner and seller have both admitted they purchased the current saddle in a rush when the last saddle was stolen and that they should have checked it properly before handing him over to me. I'm obviously kicking myself that I didn't get my saddler out to double check it but trusted them when they said the new saddle had been checked.

 

[catroo]

From the sounds of it you've got a loan with view to buy, as in my mind a six months trial is very long. From this point of view I wouldn't be expecting a reduction in price for either the saddle or the physio treatment as these would be costs you'd have to cover if you loaned or owned. While the horse came with the saddle it doesn't guarantee the saddle fits and riding with an ill-fitting saddle has potentially caused the problem being treated by the physio.

If the physio thinks the damage to the back is old then you may have a case as it's a pre existing problem. Did you have the horse vetted before you took it on?

 

[mel_s]

Its difficult - do you have some kind of contract?

Although on the one hand i'd expect them to send everything they agreed to, and it be ok, you should also have checked.

If you were willing to pay the asking price of the horse in its current state (but had it on trial instead) then all this would have happened had you purchased the horse and you'd have had to pay for it then. So the original owners are actually the ones losing out, as they were kind enough to let the horse go on trial?

However - they may be really reasonable people, so you could ask and just see what they say.

 

[lastchancer]

Wow that was a bit unnecessary! Owner and seller have both admitted they purchased the current saddle in a rush when the last saddle was stolen and that they should have checked it properly before handing him over to me. I'm obviously kicking myself that I didn't get my saddler out to double check it but trusted them when they said the new saddle had been checked.

Your OP asks WWYD - that is what I would do.... Sorry if you didn't like the answer.

 

[FestiveFuzz]

From the sounds of it you've got a loan with view to buy, as in my mind a six months trial is very long. From this point of view I wouldn't be expecting a reduction in price for either the saddle or the physio treatment as these would be costs you'd have to cover if you loaned or owned. While the horse came with the saddle it doesn't guarantee the saddle fits and riding with an ill-fitting saddle has potentially caused the problem being treated by the physio.

If the physio thinks the damage to the back is old then you may have a case as it's a pre existing problem. Did you have the horse vetted before you took it on?

Thanks catroo. Tbh I have already ordered his new saddle and it matters very little if they want to contribute towards it as his wellbeing is of utmost importance to me. I didn't have him vetted as I figured anything untoward would very likely show up during the course of the trial/loan, however at the moment it's a process of elimination and it's still unclear whether the back issues are directly related to the saddle or something else so will be getting him vetted before purchase to check there isn't a bigger problem with his back.

 

[Bantry]

If the saddle was included in the sale price then I'd just tell them you don't want it and negotiate a price reduction for it.

I think it would be only reasonable to expect the owner to pay for the physio treatment if you were returning the horse. When you realised that the horse needed treatment you could have either asked the owner to pay for it or you could have returned the horse. By organising and paying for the physio you are investing in the horse and treating it like your own so basically its your expense. As has been said already, claiming that the damage was caused by their badly fitting saddle (which I'm sure is true) won't wash as they'll say you should have re-checked it.

 

[paddi22]

if i was the owner i wouldn pay half costs towards physio as a sign of good faith. Playing devils advocate, for all the owner knows you could have damaged saddle by dropping or mistreating it, or the horse had changed shape due to your feed/exercise/turnout.. They gave you a horse with no issues at the start, and a saddle they felt (incorrectly maybe) in good faith was correct. If I was them I'd think anything that happened after that was your issue. If I was them I wouldn't think it makes sense to pay for a saddle they will have no future use of (unless saddle was specifically included in sale price and not just give as an extra)

 

[paddi22]

have to add that this is why i would never put a horse on trial. too much hassle! Even though the op has done everything she feels is in the best interest of the horse, If i was them i'd be tempted to take him back and just put a new ad up for sale without trial. They could have had the money sitting in their bank account months ago, and now instead they possibly have requests for saddle and physio costs.

 

[dogatemysalad]

Hope everything works out for you. It does highlight the fact that you should never take anything the owners say for granted though.
Years ago I bought a horse that came with tack and rugs. After the horse was delivered and the sellers had disappeared, I realised the tack and rugs weren't the one's I'd seen her with at the viewing. None of it fitted and was only fit for the bin.
Happens more often than you think, although, this didn't happen to you, it served me with a warning always to inspect everything before accepting the horse.

 

[twiggy2]

did you agree a price before you took the horse on loan with view to buy? if you did then I don't understand, if you want the horse you pay the agreed price.

you choice was to take the saddle and use it with out getting it checked-result horse with sore back, caused by your error.

you either pay the agreed price or give the horse back.

if you did not agree a price then they can ask what they like and if you are attached to the horse you may end up paying more than it is worth.

you can ask but if I was the seller I would stick to my guns the horse has gone wrong in your care and why should they pay towards a saddle for a horse that is sold?

 

[FestiveFuzz]

Its difficult - do you have some kind of contract?

Although on the one hand i'd expect them to send everything they agreed to, and it be ok, you should also have checked.

If you were willing to pay the asking price of the horse in its current state (but had it on trial instead) then all this would have happened had you purchased the horse and you'd have had to pay for it then. So the original owners are actually the ones losing out, as they were kind enough to let the horse go on trial?

However - they may be really reasonable people, so you could ask and just see what they say.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I truly wish I'd got his saddle checked when he first arrived. We do have a contract in place but it's a little grey in the event of a pre-existing condition as tbh we weren't expecting there to be any.

I took him on trial/loan first as he'd been off work for a while and I wanted to see what he'd be like before committing. It's transpired that he's a lot greener than advertised (the ad described him as a confidence giver) whereas he takes his confidence from his rider. So whilst I absolutely adore him, he will need a lot more work to become the horse I thought I was buying and had I known this at the beginning I would have probably walked away. Also had I been buying without a trial I would have had him vetted which may have shown the back problems up so it's hard to say if the owners would be in a better or worse position for offering a trial.

 

[Vodkagirly]

To me it depends on how much the horse is worth and how much your paying?
How would you feel if you offered them less and they say no not selling him and take him back?
If your now emotionally attached to the horse and the price is reasonable I would just swallow the cost as part of horse ownership.
If you not, or price isn't reasonable, ask for a discount.

 

[Dry Rot]

Sorry things have not worked out but the fact remains that the horse is their's as is the saddle. You have the horse on loan with view to buy. If you want to do anything outside that agreement, you should have got the owner's agreement first, preferably (as I am always saying!) in writing.

Sorry about that but only in cases of extreme emergency does one person have the right to tamper with another's property unless there is already an agreement in place.

The owners could very easily turn around and say, "Oh, but Uncle Bert is a saddle maker and we can get him to fix it for nothing. And Aunt Sally is a physio so you've wasted more of your money".

Sorry, but that once happened to me and I had to admit to the owner's logic! Not nice but then life is sometimes difficult and unfair.

 

[dogatemysalad]

The saddle wasn't fit for purpose, so its fair enough to ask for a reduction based on the worth of the saddle, but to ask for a reduction because the horse is greener than you thought or because you failed to have it vetted before taking the LWVTB, isn't.

The owners took a leap of faith in giving a 6 month trial period as no one pays for a vetting if they expect the horse will fail. You'd only pay for one if you think the horse will pass.

The owners have taken a risk, you have had the benefit of their trust and to try and negotiate a reduction based on the horse's value would be unfair.

 

[Spring Feather]

If I was the owner of the horse I would want you to decide now if you are buying it or not. If not, hand it back, because presumably the owner is looking to sell the horse and it's wasting everyone's time by you hanging on to it. If I was loaning a horse for this period of time I wouldn't expect to have any tack with it and would supply my own. If a price has been previously agreed between you and the seller then that's the price in my opinion; all haggling should have been done prior to the trial period.

 

[temple_jessica]

You say he "started" misbehaving, so i assume he didn't to start with. I would say its your responsibility

 

[FestiveFuzz]

If the saddle was included in the sale price then I'd just tell them you don't want it and negotiate a price reduction for it.

I think it would be only reasonable to expect the owner to pay for the physio treatment if you were returning the horse. When you realised that the horse needed treatment you could have either asked the owner to pay for it or you could have returned the horse. By organising and paying for the physio you are investing in the horse and treating it like your own so basically its your expense. As has been said already, claiming that the damage was caused by their badly fitting saddle (which I'm sure is true) won't wash as they'll say you should have re-checked it.

I notified the seller as soon as we discovered there was an issue with his back. Our contract states I have to give 3 months notice to terminate anyway so it was agreed in the event that I didn't want the horse the physio costs would be refunded to me. Despite others urging caution at paying for his physio treatment I was happy to do so as like you say it was an investment in the horse, and all being well I still intend to buy him.

if i was the owner i wouldn pay half costs towards physio as a sign of good faith. Playing devils advocate, for all the owner knows you could have damaged saddle by dropping or mistreating it, or the horse had changed shape due to your feed/exercise/turnout.. They gave you a horse with no issues at the start, and a saddle they felt (incorrectly maybe) in good faith was correct. If I was them I'd think anything that happened after that was your issue. If I was them I wouldn't think it makes sense to pay for a saddle they will have no future use of (unless saddle was specifically included in sale price and not just give as an extra)

I completely agree with regard to the saddle and as previously stated have already ordered him a new saddle with no expectation for the owner to pay towards it. It was the seller who suggested the new saddle price be taken from the purchase price as the saddle was part of our purchase agreement. I totally understand that it's a hard situation to judge as without having the saddle checked when he arrived we can't possibly say for certain whether this is a pre-existing issue or not.

have to add that this is why i would never put a horse on trial. too much hassle! Even though the op has done everything she feels is in the best interest of the horse, If i was them i'd be tempted to take him back and just put a new ad up for sale without trial. They could have had the money sitting in their bank account months ago, and now instead they possibly have requests for saddle and physio costs.

They have already received a sizeable deposit from me so they aren't completely out of pocket right now. As mentioned above I never asked them to contribute towards the new saddle and was asking whether others would ask for some of the physio costs to be taken from the purchase price, which it seems the majority wouldn't so there's my answer.

Hope everything works out for you. It does highlight the fact that you should never take anything the owners say for granted though.
Years ago I bought a horse that came with tack and rugs. After the horse was delivered and the sellers had disappeared, I realised the tack and rugs weren't the one's I'd seen her with at the viewing. None of it fitted and was only fit for the bin.
Happens more often than you think, although, this didn't happen to you, it served me with a warning always to inspect everything before accepting the horse.

Thanks. I am truly kicking myself right now for making such a rookie error and have definitely learnt my lesson.

did you agree a price before you took the horse on loan with view to buy? if you did then I don't understand, if you want the horse you pay the agreed price.

you choice was to take the saddle and use it with out getting it checked-result horse with sore back, caused by your error.

you either pay the agreed price or give the horse back.

if you did not agree a price then they can ask what they like and if you are attached to the horse you may end up paying more than it is worth.

you can ask but if I was the seller I would stick to my guns the horse has gone wrong in your care and why should they pay towards a saddle for a horse that is sold?

They told me what they wanted for him but then told me to make them an offer once I'd had him for a while as in their words "he wouldn't sell as he is right now" as he was unfit and would barely even walk in the school. They are desperate to get rid of him and have already made it clear they don't want him back. As mentioned previously the SELLER has offered to contribute towards the new saddle, I had already ordered a new saddle for him as he needed one. We have a re-assessment with the physio soon so I was waiting until we knew for definite what the issue was before discussing any negotiation with the sellers.

 

[FestiveFuzz]

Sorry things have not worked out but the fact remains that the horse is their's as is the saddle. You have the horse on loan with view to buy. If you want to do anything outside that agreement, you should have got the owner's agreement first, preferably (as I am always saying!) in writing.

Sorry about that but only in cases of extreme emergency does one person have the right to tamper with another's property unless there is already an agreement in place.

The owners could very easily turn around and say, "Oh, but Uncle Bert is a saddle maker and we can get him to fix it for nothing. And Aunt Sally is a physio so you've wasted more of your money".

Sorry, but that once happened to me and I had to admit to the owner's logic! Not nice but then life is sometimes difficult and unfair.

Hi Dry Rot, I think you misunderstand. At all times I have been in contact with the sellers and have asked advice before taking any action. He's always bucked when ridden but when I came back from honeymoon (he'd had a 2 week break) he bronked at a puddle. I spoke to the sellers that day and suggested it might be an issue with the saddle. They agreed as the saddle was just a replacement and were happy for me to get the saddler and physio out. At no point have I done anything without their permission and I have always got their agreement in writing.

 

[YorksG]

OP has had free use of the horse for six months, and NOW wants to start negotiating a price! If I were the owner it would be back with me by tonight and up for sale tomorrow, with a no trials clause.

 

[FestiveFuzz]

The saddle wasn't fit for purpose, so its fair enough to ask for a reduction based on the worth of the saddle, but to ask for a reduction because the horse is greener than you thought or because you failed to have it vetted before taking the LWVTB, isn't.

The owners took a leap of faith in giving a 6 month trial period as no one pays for a vetting if they expect the horse will fail. You'd only pay for one if you think the horse will pass.

The owners have taken a risk, you have had the benefit of their trust and to try and negotiate a reduction based on the horse's value would be unfair.

I think the difference would be greener than I thought versus greener than advertised. Horse was described as having taught others to ride, yet had no comprehension of basic aids so we've had to go right back to basics with him. Thankfully I've had horses most of my life so whilst I wouldn't actively have looked for such a green horse I have enough experience and a great support team around me to help bring him on. I suspect had a novice bought him there would have been a "not as described" thread but really that's by the by. I also never stated I would ask for a reduction in price as I didn't get him vetted, that was of course my decision although if the physio decides there's more going on with his back I'll be speaking to the seller about me getting a vet out to check him over and possibly x-ray his back.

 

[FestiveFuzz]

OP has had free use of the horse for six months, and NOW wants to start negotiating a price! If I were the owner it would be back with me by tonight and up for sale tomorrow, with a no trials clause.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I was told upon starting the trial that they had a price in mind but were happy to negotiate once I'd got to know him better as they have no interest in keeping him, so I don't see how I am in the wrong for asking whether I should consider his physio treatment as part of this negotiation. I've also by no means had a free horse. He is kept on our yard where I pay all his costs and a sizeable deposit was paid by me when I took him on trial.

You say he "started" misbehaving, so i assume he didn't to start with. I would say its your responsibility

He has always bucked but once I got back from honeymoon he started bronking. Which is when I spoke to the sellers about getting the physio/saddler out.

If I was the owner of the horse I would want you to decide now if you are buying it or not. If not, hand it back, because presumably the owner is looking to sell the horse and it's wasting everyone's time by you hanging on to it. If I was loaning a horse for this period of time I wouldn't expect to have any tack with it and would supply my own. If a price has been previously agreed between you and the seller then that's the price in my opinion; all haggling should have been done prior to the trial period.

That's fair enough but the horse was being sold with tack, so surely there is a certain expectation that it comes with useable tack? Haggling was not done prior to the trial as the owner wanted me to get to know the horse before naming my price.

 

[harrysmum]

Hmmmm .... Call me cynical but I'm always ultra cautious of a horse that's " just been in a field" for whatever apparent reason. As for the OP having had a horse"free of charge" I cant actually see this as she has obviously footed the bill for lots of things without turning a hair. It would seem 6 months is a long trial period- think I'd be wondering why it was allowed to be so long.
Personally alarm bells would be ringing for me and I would be asking for details of the horses veterinary history before spending any more money.
Sorry if I sound a bit harsh but I do think that OP has done her best for this horse and clearly has his best interests at heart.