Horse Rustlers!

[Bird]

Well said, and me, too, Cindi.

I guess even when I've had people owe me money on horses or anything else I don't take advantage of the situation. If you want to talk about honesty and integrity then pay the lady what the horse is worth. If in your own opinion the horse iw worth way more than you paid for it then make compensation in the amount of the fair value of the horse. Our policy is if we sell you a horse or buy a horse from you we are going to make it right today, a week from today, and 30 days from today. Most people don't ever bring our horses back but every horse we sell you don't like it bring it back. We'll give you your full price back. And if I buy a horse from someone I'm going to give them what the animal is worth and not take advantage of the situation no matter what the other persons character is. If the lady had never lied to you and had been upstanding then that means you would have given her the horse back? To me it doesn't matter what the persons character. Treat everybody the same regardless.

[RichZ]

Richard, I understand what you're saying, and I respect you for that. But the situation here is way different than yours. I think Jennifer was basically trying to save Doc from a neglectful owner, selling him to a friend, who has unknown motives. If this friend wanted Doc so badly, why didn't he come forward before? I still think Jennifer did the right thing.

In your case, you're a professional horse breeder. You sell the horse as a business, and everyone knows the high quality of your horses and what to expect. The people buying your horses are CERTAINLY NOT trying to save them from YOU!!! If I was closer, and looking for another horse, I'd buy one from YOU in a heartbeat!!!! [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[Stoneheartfarm]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
So now we're at the day of the sale. Jennifer told Joan she could sell Doc to her for the amount she owed us. They talked about how much Joan had paid for him a couple of years before ($7000 -- remember the daughter -- we [Jennifer and the farrier] imagine he could bring $4000) and that she owed Jennifer significantly less. Jennifer told her that it was up to her, that she wasn't budging on the price. In the end, Joan decided to stiff the friend to save herself $1200 and sold the horse to Jennifer. Joan was so relieved to be done with and Jennifer was so happy to be done with it and have Doc that they actually hugged. Then she left.

Then she found out that she could have gotten $2500 from the friend. The rest is history.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, the fact that Joan is not a nice person and neglects her animals, is no reason anyone should be able to buy her property at 1/3rd it's value. If it is, then there are alot of us who are missing out on a good business deal, buying the property of mean people at below wholesale.

Second, your post indicates you discussed the actual value of the animal with her, and she agreed to the sale price.

I guess my call would be that the horse is yours, a deal is a deal. However, watch your back, she sounds like the kind that just might try to take you to court to get the animal back.

Steve

[itsmeCindi]

Joan sounds like a perfectly nice person...just irresponsible. Property of irresponsible people is sold everyday at less than it's value. Note...mortgage foreclosures, property seizure for failure to pay property taxes, and vehicle repossessions.

Besides, as close as I can tell, the 'supposed' value of this horse is based on Joan's say-so and Joan's friend's offer, which may have been nothing more than a ruse to instigate a higher offer from the boarders.

You have to consider the source. If someone stiffed me on my boarding fee for three months, lied to me releatedly and avoided fulfilling their financial obligation, I would have to take EVERYTHING they said with a grain of salt.

The facts are, she did not meet her obligations, she agreed to sell the horse and if she'd not lucid enough to make these decisions then she shouldn't be wandering around loose. Like Steve says, watch out for backlash. Gitcha a big ol' mean dog. [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[RichZ]

"not lucid enough to make these decisions then she shouldn't be wandering around loose"

You crack me up, Cindi!!!! [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]

[Pat]

Gee, I'm sory I didn't see this thread earlier, now I may be too late to P--- everyone off.

The only horse in this story that bothers me is the high one that one of us is riding, refusing to get down and has gotten wedged into a corner by the delayed "and now for the rest of the story" aspect of the delayed factsand couldn't find a face saving way to back ouit so did what many of us do, stick to our guns and escolate.

There is a certain sleaze factor associated with this story and it is clearly on the part of the would be reneging seller. The best interests of the animal have been served. The boarding operators did nothing illegal and have, in fact, shown a great deal of patience dealing with a flake. The irresponsible former owner only had "seler's" regret after receiving a better offer if in fact the "better offer" was bonified and not a deceitful (true to character negotiating ploy.)

Even Judy and Wopner would find fully in favor the the boarders.

Hey coywboy, it is admirable that you conduct your business in such a high minded manner but I don't see a good parallel between the two situations nor do I detect a morally reprehensible propensity for cheating anyone out of somethng during a period of distress.

If there is a late breaking addendum showing the seller to mentally incompetent then perhaps a third party ombudsman could make a determination of what is fair while not putting the animal under the control of an incompetent.

Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

Let's see both the farrier and the wife agree the horse should bring $4000. And you all think that it's ok that they own the horse for a $1200 board? I guess I like to sleep at night too much to make those kind of deals.

"So, being wily business folk, we set out to end up owning Doc"

Hmm wonder if this horse had only been worth $600 and plain old sorrel if the debt would have been willing to have been forgiven??? Was this done for the welfare of the horse??? I hardly think so. It was exactly as said above, a wily business deal.

[egon]

Think I'll stand along side Doc on this one.

Egon

[mundamanu]

Cowboydoc, I appreciate your effort to enforce ethical and moral horse trading (dealing generally). It is often highly emotional and the welfare of the animal is always a concern. However, in this case, I just don't see the validity of your criticism.

There are two things that I want to point out. The first point will seem like opportunistic backtracking because I am making it too late, but I'll make it anyway because it has now come up twice (cowboydoc's last post and inspector507's earlier post). By "wily" I did not intend to mean that my wife and I were cunning and tricky, but rather that we were going to turn a bad situation to our benefit through an honest and straightforward proposition. Maybe "shrewd" would have been a better word? The story and the follow-up explanation clearly show that there was no dissembling on our part, AT ALL. You are acting like we only gave this woman one option and bullied her or swindled her into taking it. She was given two very clearly-stated, equally available options. 1) Pay us $1200 cash and get the horse off the property and 2) Sell Doc to us for $1200.

The second thing is that I have not been able to figure out why some people are so hung up on the price that we paid for the horse. The notion that we didn't pay "fair value" for the horse is bothering me. One can guess a "fair market value" for something -- we think $4000 in the case of Doc. But, the "fair value" OF A DEAL is determined jointly by the seller and the buyer through negotiation (assuming the absence of coercion).

According to the logic of your "fair value" argument, you'd have to pay people more than they are asking any time somebody was trying to get rid of something by selling it cheaply. For example, imagine that it's the last day of an antique show. You stop at a booth and see a table that you know is a $2000 table but that is marked at $500. Being a good person, you say to the seller, "Hey, you know that table is actually worth $2000." The seller smiles and says, "Yep, it is. The thing is is that it's the last day of the show. We came in with a big truck, but we ordered a smaller truck for the trip home; unfortunately, we didn't sell as much as we'd hoped. We're trying to cut down our inventory. The cost-benefit says that the space gained in the truck by selling that table is worth the difference. So, if you like it, it's yours for $500." Are you really going to say to the seller, "I sure do like the table, but I can't buy it for $500; that's not its fair value. I'll give you the $2000?" Joan thought about and took the deal because she wanted out. The "space in the truck" (being free and clear without giving up $1200 cash) was worth the difference, until she found out she could have gotten more.

By the way, while we may not have accepted a $600 "plain old sorrel" as satisfaction of a $1200 debt, we certainly wouldn't love or want Doc any less if he were that horse with the same personality. Our 3-yr old thoroughbred Val was purchased at auction for a mere $450 and he's as dear to us as our multi-thousand dollar thoroughbred. (By the way, before you go accusing us of screwing some other poor soul by buying Val so cheap at auction, let it be said that Val was a registered race horse who had outlived his usefulness to his owners and so was put up at an auction where the vast majority of the horses are purchased for slaughter.) So, in your example Cowboydoc, we'd happily take Doc plus $600 cash.

We got a good horse, cheaply, out of the deal, every element of which was explicitly discussed between buyer and seller. The only reason that this story was posted here at CBN was because the seller couldn't accept that a deal's a deal, especially when that deal is made out in the open and in the full light of day.