QUOTE (Liz Salmon @ Feb 26 2009, 07:12 PM)
One person held a horse for 3 weeks and then never heard from you. This prevented other buyers from trying to purchase this horse because she thought he was sold and that you were buying him. I apologise if I have offended you, but we have had rather too many time wasters shopping for cheap horses.
I have a different take on this line of thinking.
Sellers need to understand that a horse is NOT sold until the money is in the bank (contract or no contract). In other words, sellers should not be "holding" a horse for any buyer until the money is in the bank. If the seller chooses to "hold" an uncontracted horse and pass on a sale to a different buyer (while this alleged holding takes place), they can blame themselves (for counting their chickens before the eggs were hatched).
Buyers need to understand that a horse they are interested in remains for sale to the first buyer
who deposits the sales price (or a good faith deposit) into the sellers bank account. If a buyer is seriously interested in buying a horse, they need to understand time is of the essence
to deposit money into the sellers account or face the very real prospect of losing that horse to a different buyer. Most buyers know that it is a buyer's market in horse sales. Sellers should be aware of that too.
Contracts are a simple tool to spell out what seller and buyer expect from one another. They are intended to eliminate confusion. If either party does not perform on the contract, the performing party has two ethical options. They can bring suit or they can take their losses, if any, as lessons learned and simply move forward. As anyone with experience in "suing" for breach of contract knows, it is an expensive proposition often resulting in proving a point only. Suing internationally is all but impossible.
I like what Kelly said:
Those you turn away today, may be tomorrow's buyer.
and think tire kickers eventually do buy a horse from someone. So long as sellers keep what I've written above in mind, no one need chastise or malign the "shoppers" or what many refer to as the "tire kickers".
In regards to what Carol has said:
For what its worth, I think that breeders sharing information about unethical buyers is a good thing to do. I hate to hear stories about how one breeder was taken in and then people hide this information and the next breeder gets taken in and so on and so on.
This would appear on the surface as a great tool for breeders, and might even work in theory, but in reality, there are two sides to every story. How would I know if the story I heard from Breeder A about Breeder B was true unless I heard both sides AND saw all the evidence in the case?
Without seeing the "evidence", the rhetoric is meaningless. Too often, the information (or more appropriately termed as RUMORS) shared between breeders is simply a tool employed by a circle of friends to steer people back into their own circle of friends. These rumors, outright lies and criticisms abound, as you know, without a shred of evidence to support them - yet, some people will take whatever is said as the gospel truth, like in this instance with Alrayan, and pass judgement on another without ever having spoke to the person they've passed judgement on. Ultimately, no one knows who to believe
and that works VERY WELL for unethical people to continue their practices
Egyptians, that name sounds like it could be a dance
I have not heard of this name before so cannot offer any advice or opinion.
JEVA Farms LLC