Opinions

[MooreAcres]

A year ago I sold a mare. Contract was simple, but covered everything and included a buy-back/first right of refusal clause.

It states "If this horse is to ever be sold or rehomed, the Buyer must first contact the Seller. The Seller has the options to purchase the horse back at the same price it was sold for. Should the Seller decline to take the horse back, the Buyer is then free to do whatever with the horse."

I found out that the horse was sold. The buyer did NOT contact me. When I approached the buyer about it, I was told her price was WAY higher than what I sold her for.

Is there anything I can do???

 

[disneyhorse]

I'm not sure about this one. I've heard it's a courtesy, and not really a legally binding thing to have Right of First Refusal.

However, if you had a lawyer write it up, the language might make a difference?

Most horse people (myself included) just write up loose contracts when buying and selling horses...

That wording is not very specific. What is the timeline for the First Refusal? Does the buyer have to hold on to the horse for a year while you make up your mind? How does the buyer have to contact you before it's considered "enough effort"? Just some things to think about when writing future contracts... I usually ask that my buyers give me 48 hours to a week to decide, and then after that it's fair game....

Personally, though, I wouldn't buy a horse with those terms. Value of horses is so fluid, I'd hate to be bound to the original purchase price.

Andrea

 

[Doobie]

I have purchase and sold horses with this clause and no it is not 'legally' binding... but I agree with disneyhorse I would not do it again.

I have sold back horses to someone at what I got the horses for but after the years of putting into them and the better price that was out there I could of gotten a lot better selling on the market.

Would I like the money, sure... but the friendship is worth much more to me then the money would be.

 

[WhiteTailsMinis]

Interesting post. I see nothing wrong with the clause itself, however I'm not in agreement with "at the purchase price".

Why would that be fair to the person that bought it from me? They've covered expenses for however long they owned it so why would I expect to pay the same thing they did in a different economy? The economy might be higher at the time of sale and why shouldn't I consider whatever their sale price is as my first right of refusal?

And more importantly, the economy could be DOWN and worth less than I sold it for in previous years - - so I would be able to buy it back for LESS. This portion of the clause could harm me also because the person could fake wanting to sell it in a $500 economy and come to me to buy back at the $3,000 they paid me. LOL

 

If (and haven't done so yet) I used that clause, I would expect that the right of refusal would be for whatever their asking price is for the public. I either take it for that price or let them sell it elsewhere. That was my first right of refusal and its my decision if I want to take the horse back at its advertised price - or I let them sell it outright and get what they can for it. I think "at the purchase price" is just too many conditions to the clause.

 

[Reble]

I would not expect someone to buy a horse off me and than down the road, I have the say of what they can do with them.

Once a horse is sold, it is their horse.

What if it was a stallion and they gelded him ?

What if you found the previous owner was an neglect owner.

Prices change!

Too many circumstances can arise !

Contracts are only as good as the person.

Seller and Buyer be ware

 

[Beth G]

I would not expect someone to buy a horse off me and than down the road, I have the say of what they can do with them.

Once a horse is sold, it is their horse.

What if it was a stallion and they gelded him ?

What if you found the previous owner was an neglect owner.

Prices change!

Too many circumstances can arise !

Contracts are only as good as the person.

Seller and Buyer be ware

I so agree with you

 

[Riverrose28]

I agree with Reble, once a horse is sold it becomes the property of the buyer. For example lets say you buy a weanling colt, spend thousands of dollars by sending him to a trainer and paying to have him shown. Then you breed him and he starts poducing champions. That certainly increases his monetary value. Also my accountant has told me that broodmares depreciate over the years even if they produce champions, it doesn't make much sense to me, just the way it works I guess.

If you really want the horse back perhaps you could talk to the seller and ask for the buyers information and see if something can be worked out.