Fascinating Tom Selleck court decision: The end of "Buyer Beware"??

AP:

DEL MAR, Calif. – Actor Tom Selleck has been awarded more than $187,000 after a California jury found the actor was duped into buying a lame horse.

Selleck accused Del Mar equestrian Dolores Cuenca of trying to pass off a show horse with a medical condition as fit to ride in competitions.

The defense had argued that Selleck didn't check the veterinarian records of the 10-year-old Zorro.

The bulk of the San Diego County jury's award is for the price of the horse. The rest is to cover boarding costs. A second trial next week will determine how much Selleck should be paid in punitive damages.

Views: 242

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

What do you think? I think this is a landmark decision that will change the way people sell horses!
Wow, punishing someone for selling a lame show horse. Whatever is the world coming to?
The only answer I can think of is for the seller to insist that the buyer gets an independent veterinary opinion as to the horse's soundness.
Well Barbara this might just clean up the industry a bit, there is a bit of this going on with dodgy deelers. Although I must say Mr Sellick must be a bit of a dope buying a horse for that much and not getting a vet check?
I know, isn't that bizarre? I would always have a vet of my choice examine the horse and I would always ask for the vet records or ask to speak to the horse's current vet. I also ask very black and white questions...
Has the horse ever had this? Has the horse ever done that?
leaving no room for muddled answers.
sounds like he doesnt have a lot of experience with horses doesnt it???
that's like saying people were duped into getting bad loans.... read the print or hire someone who knows what they are doing..... no vet check is just dumb. he's lucky the award went in his favor.
Yeah, I think there may be more to this story, don't you. As far as I know Mr. Selleck is horse knowledgable. He should have had a vet check when spending that much money, but maybe he did and th vet didn't catch it?? Stranger things have happened.
I agree with Marti. Before jumping to any conclusions one way or another, I would have to see all the specifics of the case. There are so many legal parameters in any action that a little snippet across the AP does not sway me in any direction at all.....JMHO
Vet check, vet check, vet check.
I've now heard that he did have a vet check and took legal action against the vet too. Just rumour for now.
oooh the plot thickens!!!!
I know the US legal system is a lot different than it is over here in the UK, but it strikes me that this case could open the floodgates for a lot of lawyers to start making a lot of money!

Mind you that is a hell of a lot of money for a horse so I'd be pretty upset if I was him.

RSS

The Rider Marketplace

International Horse News

Click Here for Barnmice Horse News

© 2024   Created by Barnmice Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service