Question on Contract Law (refunds)

[Lridgeway]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

A friend of mine is a horse trainer and entered into a verbal/written (phone/text) contract to train some horses for her friend. As they were friends she made the unfortunate decision to not have her sign her standard training contract.

The friend made several changes to their arrangement/agreement during the first several weeks and all of the various changes were agreed to and accepted by my friend.

The woman who owns the horses pulled them out of training early (6 days) with less than 24 hours notice and in the same text stating the horses would be moved also stated she did not expect any refund even though they were leaving early.

The following day she demanded a refund of $600 (my friend did not respond)

The day after that she demanded a refund of $2,100 (again friend did not respond)

She has yet to give any reason (valid or otherwise) for pulling the horses out early nor has expressed disappointment with the work my friend had done.

As I understand contract law (very limited), once the owner sent the text stating she was pulling her horses out early thus terminating the contract and at the same time stating she didn't expect any refunds (text message has been saved). She's pretty much dug her own grave, she can come back and ask for a refund but I can't imagine if this went to small claims court that she would actually win a judgement against my friend.

Horse owner does owe for damages her horses caused (prior text stating she's aware of damages and will pay for them), she also owes reimbursement for hauling (350 miles, 7 hour trip).

In order to offer her something my friend agreed to absorb the costs of fixing the damages and make good (herself) on the monies owed for hauling (these two items would be worth about $500, she knows there's absolutely no way she'll see this money and we figured offering the horse owner at least something would appease her (we were wrong).

So how damaging was the horses owners own text stating she didn't expect a refund, would it hold up in small claims?

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

A friend of mine is a horse trainer and entered into a verbal/written (phone/text) contract to train some horses for her friend. As they were friends she made the unfortunate decision to not have her sign her standard training contract.

The friend made several changes to their arrangement/agreement during the first several weeks and all of the various changes were agreed to and accepted by my friend.

The woman who owns the horses pulled them out of training early (6 days) with less than 24 hours notice and in the same text stating the horses would be moved also stated she did not expect any refund even though they were leaving early.

The following day she demanded a refund of $600 (my friend did not respond)

The day after that she demanded a refund of $2,100 (again friend did not respond)

She has yet to give any reason (valid or otherwise) for pulling the horses out early nor has expressed disappointment with the work my friend had done.

As I understand contract law (very limited), once the owner sent the text stating she was pulling her horses out early thus terminating the contract and at the same time stating she didn't expect any refunds (text message has been saved). She's pretty much dug her own grave, she can come back and ask for a refund but I can't imagine if this went to small claims court that she would actually win a judgement against my friend.

Horse owner does owe for damages her horses caused (prior text stating she's aware of damages and will pay for them), she also owes reimbursement for hauling (350 miles, 7 hour trip).

In order to offer her something my friend agreed to absorb the costs of fixing the damages and make good (herself) on the monies owed for hauling (these two items would be worth about $500, she knows there's absolutely no way she'll see this money and we figured offering the horse owner at least something would appease her (we were wrong).

So how damaging was the horses owners own text stating she didn't expect a refund, would it hold up in small claims?

First, forget about this business of the agreement not being in writing! Your friend benefited by it. Its a non issue. If the owner paid for services that were not rendered then she is entitled to a comparable refund.

As concerns the text message your friend would have multiple evidentiary problems just trying to authenticate it and allow it to be introduced in evidence as a defense to any future litigation.

Moreover, there is no consideration for the owner's supposed waiver of any refund. Nor would the owner be bound by it under the principle of promissory estoppel for the simple reason that your friend's position did not change one iota because of it.

 

[tranquility]

Since we are talking about a refund, what was the agreement?

Was there a promise to perform a certain amount of trainings for a certain amount of money?

If so, I am uncertain about Latigo's analysis. It seems like your friend should get the benefit of the bargain and the horse owner should bring over the horse for the rest of the agreed to training. If the sole reason this contract cannot be completed is because of horse owner making it impossible to do so, I don't see why she deserves a refund for the breach.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

A friend of mine is a horse trainer and entered into a verbal/written (phone/text) contract to train some horses for her friend. As they were friends she made the unfortunate decision to not have her sign her standard training contract.

The friend made several changes to their arrangement/agreement during the first several weeks and all of the various changes were agreed to and accepted by my friend.

The woman who owns the horses pulled them out of training early (6 days) with less than 24 hours notice and in the same text stating the horses would be moved also stated she did not expect any refund even though they were leaving early.

The following day she demanded a refund of $600 (my friend did not respond)

The day after that she demanded a refund of $2,100 (again friend did not respond)

She has yet to give any reason (valid or otherwise) for pulling the horses out early nor has expressed disappointment with the work my friend had done.

As I understand contract law (very limited), once the owner sent the text stating she was pulling her horses out early thus terminating the contract and at the same time stating she didn't expect any refunds (text message has been saved). She's pretty much dug her own grave, she can come back and ask for a refund but I can't imagine if this went to small claims court that she would actually win a judgement against my friend.

Horse owner does owe for damages her horses caused (prior text stating she's aware of damages and will pay for them), she also owes reimbursement for hauling (350 miles, 7 hour trip).

In order to offer her something my friend agreed to absorb the costs of fixing the damages and make good (herself) on the monies owed for hauling (these two items would be worth about $500, she knows there's absolutely no way she'll see this money and we figured offering the horse owner at least something would appease her (we were wrong).

So how damaging was the horses owners own text stating she didn't expect a refund, would it hold up in small claims?

I share some of the same uncertainty tranquility shows over latigo's analysis.

If there was not a "no refund" policy outlined in the oral (or texted) agreement, the horse owner should be entitled to a refund of the amount paid in advance for the training sessions but not used. It appears from what has been said that each training session cost $100, making the refund amount $600 for the unused 6 days.

However, if the horse trainer is due reimbursement from the horse owner for hauling (if this was agreed to be paid over and above the training session fee) and the horse owner caused damages, and these items totaled $500, it seems that the horse trainer owes the horse owner a refund of $100.

The horse trainer can provide the horse owner with a detailed billing receipt, subtracting from the training session refund the amounts owing the horse trainer, and refund $100 to the horse owner.

This is, of course, if I am reading the situation correctly (and I am not entirely sure that I am).

 

[RRevak]

Your friend needs to sign on and ask her own questions. We need to know the exact initial agreement, every change both agreed upon and acted on, as well as other details you don't seem privy to. Since I have experience with such arrangements/contracts I can potentially assist but only with the trainer herself.

 

[quincy]

Your friend needs to sign on and ask her own questions. We need to know the exact initial agreement, every change both agreed upon and acted on, as well as other details you don't seem privy to. Since I have experience with such arrangements/contracts I can potentially assist but only with the trainer herself.

Yes. Details of the specific agreement (or agreements) made is necessary to determine if either are owed anything, and these are details are best provided by one of the parties to the agreement.

I am sort of curious where the $2100 figure came from that was demanded as a refund by the horse owner, too.

Things are SO much simpler for all parties when their agreements are put into writing.

 

[RRevak]

Yes. Details of the specific agreement (or agreements) made is necessary to determine if either are owed anything, and these are details are best provided by one of the parties to the agreement.

I am sort of curious where the $2100 figure came from that was demanded as a refund by the horse owner, too.

Things are SO much simpler for all parties when their agreements are put into writing.

Often these kinds of agreements involve more than simple training (the two I currently have with clients do) so more than likely either OP is withholding details or they are only being told portions of the situation. Hence my request for the trainer to log on herself.

Edit: its not uncommon for lower end barns to work without written contracts. I myself refuse to do anything without things being in writing, but I know of others who choose to do things "the old cowboy way" with a verbal agreement and a stiff handshake.

 

[quincy]

... I know of others who choose to do things "the old cowboy way" with a verbal agreement and a stiff handshake.

It would be nice if oral agreements and stiff handshakes were all it took to keep men honest. Unfortunately, too often disputes between parties end up in court and the problems with the old cowboy way can become painfully clear.

I think you are smart to get everything in writing.

 

[LdiJ]

Often these kinds of agreements involve more than simple training (the two I currently have with clients do) so more than likely either OP is withholding details or they are only being told portions of the situation. Hence my request for the trainer to log on herself.

Edit: its not uncommon for lower end barns to work without written contracts. I myself refuse to do anything without things being in writing, but I know of others who choose to do things "the old cowboy way" with a verbal agreement and a stiff handshake.

Horse training contracts are often for a package, not necessarily individual sessions. It is not necessarily possible to quantify the value of a few missed sessions.

 

[latigo]

. . . . . . . It seems like your friend should get the benefit of the bargain and the horse owner should bring over the horse for the rest of the agreed to training. If the sole reason this contract cannot be completed is because of horse owner making it impossible to do so, I don't see why she deserves a refund for the breach.

" Should get the benefit of the bargain"?

That could be so, excepting it is pure speculation on your part that there exists the needed specific terms and conditions making it so.

All we are told is that it was verbally agreed that some horses were to be boarded and trained. Nothing with respect to the period of time, its duration, or that it couldn't be cancelled at will.

Moreover, if it the agreement was for a fixed period of time we would be hearing about it. In stead, nothing! The entire focus is on the significance of the e message; to-wit:

" . . . . how damaging was the horses owners own text stating she didn't expect a refund, would it hold up in small claims?"

Does that come off as someone claiming they are entitled to retain all the payments as damages for breach of contract? Not to me it doesn't.
_____________________

And why this if the arrangement could not be cancelled at will:

" She has yet to give any reason (valid or otherwise) for pulling the horses out early nor has expressed disappointment with the work my friend had done."

I find that sentence inconsistent with any contention that the owner was bound to a fixed period of time for the boarding and training of her animals. Not to mention that the OP has never mentioned any agreed "fixed period of time for the boarding and training of the animals"!

And we haven't begun to address the principle of "certainty of contract". Just trying to identify the presence of language giving the needed element of certainty in a written agreement can be sometimes tough. But as to one unwritten . . . . .?

 

[tranquility]

That could be so, excepting it is pure speculation on your part that there exists the needed specific terms and conditions making it so.

Do you believe there was a contract?

 

[latigo]

Horse training contracts are often for a package, not necessarily individual sessions. It is not necessarily possible to quantify the value of a few missed sessions.

"Often"? "Not necessarily"? "Not necessarily possible"? Most helpful, Mr. Walter Mitty. *
____________________

[SUP][*] With apologies to the estate of James Thurber. Had the famous author Thurber ever met one such as Ld he might "possibly" have been the subject of another of Mitty's fantasies. Sitting as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court resolving puzzling legal issues beyond mortal capability.[/SUP]

 

[quincy]

"Often"? "Not necessarily"? "Not necessarily possible"? Most helpful, Mr. Walter Mitty. *
____________________

[SUP][*] With apologies to the estate of James Thurber. Had the famous author Thurber ever met one such as Ld he might "possibly" have been the subject of another of Mitty's fantasies. Sitting as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court resolving puzzling legal issues beyond mortal capability.[/SUP]

Using words like often, sometimes, not necessarily, possibly, maybe, perhaps, it depends, and hedges of a similar sort, can be smart on a legal forum where we do not have all of the facts necessary to make definitive statements.

Stating emphatically that something is so, when we have absolutely no idea whether it is so or not for any one particular poster, can be a mistake and can lead a poster to a conclusion that is incorrect.