John Hasler wrote:
> Catja writes:
> > If someone is going to sue...
>
> No one is going to sue.
That's what I would have guessed, but others seem to have other opinions
- I'm not in the US, I can't judge what the likelyhoods are; I just feel
that everything the OP is doing at this point can lead to her being sued
for _something_, so she might as well give the horse relief.
> > That the owner might say 'you broke it, it's yours' is a different
> > matter.
>
> That is the only real possibility in this case.
It's likely, yes. And I'd hate it if that happens, but that's why you
have the horse vetted and why you insure it the moment you take
posession.
> > He'll either take it back or he won't, but I am thinking that he's got
> > far more of a case to not take the horse back if it fell ill and
*wasn't*
> > treated, then if the tem****ary caretaker did everything to fix the
> > situation by involving a qualified vet.
>
> He could take the horse back but refuse to pay the bill, claiming that
he
> did not authorize treatment, but why would he take it back when it
clearly
> is worth nothing?
He might take it back for a number of reasons - he probably will try not
to - and he definitely won't want to pay the vet bill- but I don't blame
him for _that_.
I'd rather pay the bill and know the horse is being looked after. If I
have it in my care, it gets care.
Catja
--
writing blog @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://beyond-elechan.livejournal.com
|
