On Jul 8, 2:14=A0pm, NancyD....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Eileen:
>
> >Somehow, I don't think she wants to buy a lame horse
> >and pay the vet bill on it . . . that was my thinking, not
> >a million dollar law suit. Stuck with a'you broke it you
> >bought it' accusation,
>
> But this may well be the case - acute laminitis brought on by a change
> in management. =A0This *is* her responsibility.
>
> >dealing with broker/owner dingbats,
> >and then a horse you now own and cannot sell or ride.
>
> It would be the same if he had been purchased outright, rather than
> taken on trial. =A0**** happens.
>
> >And no money for something useful. That looks like a nightmare to me.
>
> Sure. =A0But it's a nightmare we all face, a situation we can all be
> in. =A0It's part of having horses.
>
> Not that anyone's asking, but I vote for doing the right thing for the
> horse. =A0To do otherwise is, IMO, cruel. =A0Were he here, the vet would
> have been called first, and the broker kept informed. =A0I would assume
> the horse was now mine, and I'd suck it up and deal.
>
> Nancy DeMarco
> Mason, NH
i also wonder...(and perhaps sounding like a lunatic crazy person!)...
OK, i get that technically Caelen can't legally call the vet. the
broker is unconcerned...given the extreme pain the horse is in...could
she then call animal welfare/the humane society and explain the
situation/forcing someone's hand to do something?
however, i've learned some im****tant lessons from this thread
regarding having a horse on trial, or even sending a horse on trial
(NO NOT YOU MACHO! YOU"RE HERE FOREVER!)
betsey
|
