A friend of mine has a contract for a loaned horse. She is giving the horse up in May but the loanee has said she has to pay 2 months (due to the contract-so will pay until June) even though she wont have the horse in June. Surely this isnt right. Does anyone know what happens if you break a contract?

A contact is a contract so I suppose they could take her to court if they wanted too. It probably depends how much communication/ how friendly they are. I think I would rather pay the extra 2 months to save any hassle.

Hmm, its just seems unfair doesnt it. I have said though that if she pays the full 2 months shes entitled to ride for those 2 months otherwise the other party is breaking the contract.

What was the original contract period and is there mention of notice?  The additional 8 weeks does sound like a fairly standard notice period to me...

However, if the contract was due to expire in May, and both parties agreed to this original contract period, I can't see why she would would be asked to pay extra.  I'd suggest she has another read of the paperwork

The contract says 8 weeks but the loanee says she doesnt have to go up and see to the horse for the last month but she still has to pay the loan and for the feet to be done. I dont know the ins and outs, just what ive been told really.

That doesn't sound right to me at all. My daughter recently let her horse out on loan, the contract stated that if the horse was to be returned my daughter was to be given a months notice (just to give her time to make arrangements to get him back really).

It didn't work out and the person that loaned him told my daughter that she wanted to return him. My daughter made arrangements and fetched him within a week and the person that loaned him only paid up to the day my daughter fetched Junior back.

Paying the loan for a month after he has gone back is a bit harsh and Im not sure despite a contract that that would be acceptable if it went to court although if the contract was signed initially then I suppose all the details were agreed in the first instance. Bit tricky, I hope you manage to get it sorted and as someone else said it might be just easier to pay the month and leave it at that.

Good luck
jane

As previously said, a contract is a contract although many of us here wonder how well they will stand up in a Court of Law.  I think many of us that have contracts for our puppies hope they will be honoured by the people we entrusted our puppies to.

Why could your friend not have given 8 weeks notice as per the contract or keep the horse on for the additional month?  Having had horses on loan myself, you should always be aware of what you are expected to pay for and what the owner will.  I expect the owner needs to give themselves sufficient time to find another suitable loaner without having to pay stabling costs etc herself.

I very much doubt the owner will take her to court, but is it worth the hassle of getting yourself a potentially bad name within the horse community.  Having a good relationship with, in this case the loanee is worth more than a months loan rent.

Ummm......... IMO and being a moral person if I signed a contract, then that is the end of it, I abide by the rulings, simple!

Not sure why there is a big kick up now, is someone telling her to?

When any contract is signed one should know what they are signing, your supposed to read the small print and know what you are doing, but even so legally everyone is given a cooling off period after something is signed, that gives time if anyone was pressured or not very clear a period from at least 2 weeks to 30 days to change their mind.

If it is not done in that time period and continued then there is no legal right to wish to change things or refuse payment.

I would not be breaking any contract or causing waves, it is signed and the deal is done, IMO it should be left be. :-)

I think my point is being missed. Initially I wondered whether a contract was legally binding, we've established it is.

My friends problem is that she has been asked to pay the 2 months but has been told after one month she doesnt have to go up and ride the horse anymore. My friend says the girl who owns the horse is already being funny with her (blanking her at the yard, saying she hasnt rode the horse enough etc) so I think no matter what she does she is going to get blacklisted.

I think the problem is, she is going to be paying for a horse that she cannot ride. I dont know whether the loanee thinks shes doing them a favour saying they dont have to go up.

My friend has said she is going to pay the 2 months but is going to continue to ride and see what happens then.

But, what did the contract say with regards to this?

Did the contract say she had the horse until June? Or did it say she had it until May, but would continue to pay until June? Sorry if being thick, just not clear to me.

Actually, my question is not very clear is it?

Can I put this another way.

Someone asks to hire a racing car........ the contract is until June 30th but the car is to be returned May 1st.

To me that makes sense, the car would be raced and driven, but would then come to the garage (in this case stable) for the remaining 2 months to be serviced and made ready for re-hire obviously the person who used it would be paying for that and would not use it again during that time.

Is this what is not understood with the horse, the extra two months payment is to check the horse over, pay for hooves doing and make sure everything is in order?

I would not expect to ride or have contact with the horse once returned, well unless for a pat and such. :-) Does that make sense?

Communication is very bad here between the two, why does your friend just not ask what the rules are here if it is not stated in the contract? I would be very upset that the horses owner was thinking I did not ride the horse etc enough and was not happy with me, maybe there is something in that? It is worrying she is not happy, but the contract seems fair to me and obviously it was signed. :-)

> but has been told after one month she doesnt have to go up and ride the horse anymore.

That is different to saying she cannot go up and ride the horse.  Which is it do you know?

Having been involved with Horses in the past and been on several livery yards I have come across lots of loan agreements, there is no set contract, it is what has been mutually agreed at the time of the agreement. If you are not prepaired to honour the agreement you should not sign it.
Just because someone decides they no longer want the animal they can not expect to return it prior to the end of the agreement and not pay the full term of the contract.
The owner of the horse may need time to find suitable accommodation, bear the cost of livery and feed for the horse earlier than he/she anticipated.
In my experience most loan arrangements are frought with danger, as people who are loaning rarely look after a horse as the owner would, they just want to ride but not have the responsibility for all the nitty gritty stuff such as worming, dental care, shoeing, cleaning rugs etc.
It sounds as if the owner feels that the person has not looked after the horse properly in terms of adequate excercise, they both need to communicate with each other and come to a satisfactory agreement for the sake of the horse.
I do not think that you can equate the loan of a horse to the loan of a racing car, a horse is a living breathing animal that requires regular attention and care, having loaned an animal for quite some time I would have thought that the person would have built up an attachment for the animal and would want to work with the owner for it's best possible ongoing care. Sounds like the loanee has had their fun and now just want to hand the animal back and stop paying, regardless to how that will affect the owner and their circumstances.

No its not like that dorcas. Ive had a chat with the loanee tonight and theres a lot more to it than I first realised.

Thanks for your comments.

There are always two sides to every story and without speaking to the horse owner you will only have the view of the person loaning.
The ideal would be for someone to talk to both of them together and get them to communicate and reach a mutual resolution.
When I was on a livery yard there were always arguments about loaning horses, and it is often down to how each person interptets the contract, everyone has different views and expectations and this is where things start to go wrong.
Like most things in life the key to resolving a situation is always communication.
Can you get them talking ? Can you take a step back and be impartial or is there someone else who could ?

Its nothing to do with me, I was merely asking a question on her behalf.

I think my point is being missed. Initially I wondered whether a contract was legally binding, we've established it is.

My point is that the contract (legally binding or not) suited the loanee  whilst she wanted the horse,  now she no longer wishes to loan the horse the contract no longer suits!

Did she give up the horse  or was it taken back from her.??