do I have a breach of contract by buyer?

[cturtle]

I had a very good horse who was my friend and my child's greatest pet. But when I began maternity leave for my second child I guess I got anxioous.
Since I had been on disability for a year with a previous pregnancy and now was 9 months pregnant,I found myself worrying about what I perceived as an "uncertain future" I was worried that something might happen to me, and that I wouldn't be there to take care of my horse. Who would take care of him if something did happen to me? I didn't want to sell him, plus he was my child's pet. I discussed the possibility of selling him amongst several other horse owners and I concluded that if the right person came along who would agree to my stipulations of care of the horse and who would let me borrow him back for 5-6 times a year for leadline classesfor my child then I would consider selling him. (Note that this was a horse I had trained and "made" a champion by myself. )
I received a phone call from a friend about a seemingly very nice lady who had fallen in love with my horse and who kept pestering her to find out if the horse was for sale. I told my friend I would sell the horse only under very specific stipulations, but I would sell her for less if those stipulations were agreed to by the buyer. After a couple of meetings with the prospective buyer, during which we orally agreed on my stipulations, I added a clause to my bill of sale to that effect. She seemed like the perfect person I was looking for. She paid me the amount I requested, and we both signed the bill of sale. Now, 6 months later, the buyer refuses to honor the
stipulations of the agreement. I.E. I gave her some dates I would like to borrow the horse for my daughter, and just before the first show she called me and said that she and her husband had "changed their mind" and they weren't going to let me borrow the horse at all. Although I have witnesses who will attest that the stipulations were commonly known amongst several people and that there were no"exceptions," and I wrote a clause into the bill of sale, I now find myself contemplating whether to bring the buyer to small claims court for breach of contract and asking for the bill of sale to be nullified (I give her back her money;she returns
the horse to me).
I have detailed documentation of our talks and phone calls
but my written contract was sloppy. It was written by me and the sale took place 2 days before the birth of my new baby.
I wish the woman had never called me now.
The clause added into the "contract" states that
"the seller requests to be able to borrow the horse for light riding and for leadline classes for child, if mutually
agreed upon by buyer and seller."
The "if" part was a typo - should have been "is"
the statement should have reda ...for child, which is mutually agreed upon...
What I meant to say was that by signing this contract the
buyer was agreeing to these terms. I didn't think it important at the time since she was agreeing to all my terms.
My question - I if did bring her to small claims court for
breach of both verbal and written contract - would it be a good chance or bad chance that I would win?
I am in California.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Small Claims court would be the wrong court. You're asking for "Specific Performance" under the contract or "Rescission" of the contract, and Small Claims court can only render "money judgments". Depending upon the value of the contract, you'd need to file in Superior Court - Limited Jurisdiction, or Unlimited Jurisdiction if the amount of the contract was more than $25,000.00, which can hear Specific Performance and / or Rescission cases. But, in any event, Small Claims court would not be the court to have jurisdiction to hear this matter.

Second, since you were the writer of the contract, the contract would be "strictly construed" against you, and that "IF" was, in fact, your intent. In order to prove the "IS" versus "IF" argument, you would need to bring in parole evidence (your witnesses), and parole evidence can only be used if the contract is not understandable the way it is written.

In it's current form, the contract is very understandable. The contract says "IF" it is mutually agreed. Well, it wasn't mutually agreed by both parties that you could borrow the horse. So, there has been no breach, and nothing to warrant a "rescission" of the contract. You wrote it, and the buyer is exercising their right not to let you "borrow" their horse.

Your argument about meaning to write "IS" mutual agreed, rather than "IF", would not be upheld. Also, your witnesses to your previous "intent" would not be heard because they were not there at the time the contract was signed - - and they wouldn't be able to testify whether your intent changed.

Your pregnancy situation is irrelevant.

Good luck to you.

IAAL

[Edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE on 06-14-2001 at 09:12 AM]

 

[cturtle]

confused about small claims or superior court

Hi: Now I am confused - I was told by a litigation lawyer
that since the amount was for less than the cap on small claims that I had to take it to small claims court and
that it was too small of a case for any lawyer to take.
But I have another question: If, after signing the contract
she told other parties that she had bought the horse under
the agreement that I would be allowed to borrow the horse and if I had witnessness that can testify that she agreed
both before and after signing the contract, would it matter?
thanks for answering my question - I'm trying to find something positive in all this.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Re: confused about small claims or superior court

Hi: Now I am confused - I was told by a litigation lawyer
that since the amount was for less than the cap on small claims that I had to take it to small claims court and
that it was too small of a case for any lawyer to take.
But I have another question: If, after signing the contract
she told other parties that she had bought the horse under
the agreement that I would be allowed to borrow the horse and if I had witnessness that can testify that she agreed
both before and after signing the contract, would it matter?
thanks for answering my question - I'm trying to find something positive in all this.

My response:

I realize that you're trying to find something positive in all of this, but Small Claims court is not your answer, among other problems. I'll explain.

You said in your first post,

"I now find myself contemplating whether to bring the buyer to small claims court for breach of contract and asking for the bill of sale to be nullified (I give her back her money; she returns the horse to me)."

For the time being, and for the sake of this explanation, forget about the "cap" for Small Claims court in California, which is $5,000.00, because the money is not your goal - - the return of the horse is your goal.

While you can sue for Breach of Contract in Small Claims court and, like I said, IF you could win, that court can ONLY render a "money judgment" - - i.e., it cannot give you "specific performance". In this case, the "specific performance" would be to have the court "order" the contract rescinded ("nullified") and the horse returned to you ("I give her back her money; she returns the horse to me)."

That type of judgment cannot happen in Small Claims court, because Small Claims court is without jurisdiction to render a judgment of Specific Performance. Only the Superior Court has the type of jurisdiction.

So, if you did pose this scenario to a "litigation attorney" just as you have posed it to me on these boards, then that attorney would be flat out WRONG.

No matter the value of the horse, if you wanted "specific performance" or rescission based upon "mutual mistake", and the horse returned to you, you would need to file in Superior Court. That's it. No question about it.

But, like I said, in my opinion, and since there is NO mutual mistake (perhaps your "unilateral mistake"), and the contract, as written, is readily understandable within its own four corners without the use of "parole evidence" (the use of witnesses or other documents to explain the meaning and / or intent of the written contract), and since you were the one who wrote the contract, and you were the one who says made the "mistake" in the verbiage, the terms of the contract, within the four corners of that contract, would be narrowly construed against you, and liberally construed in favor of the buyer.

In my opinion, and in the final analysis, you will have spent far more than the horse is worth, and still wind up losing.

I'm really sorry about your situation - - especially for the sake of your child. But, when dealing with such matters, and for such sums of money, foresight (using an attorney to draw up a contract) is far better than hindsight (finding out later that you're the one who made the mistake).

I wish you well.

IAAL





[Edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE on 06-15-2001 at 02:01 AM]

 

[LegalBeagle]

The most annoying part of situations like this, is not the money or the item, it is that this person has gone against an agreement and then got away with it. This part is always the hardest to stomach.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

The most annoying part of situations like this, is not the money or the item, it is that this person has gone against an agreement and then got away with it. This part is always the hardest to stomach.

My response:

I understand what you mean to say, LegalBeagle; i.e., the "oral" agreements versus the "written" agreements. But, as you well know, once an agreement is set to writing, it's the writing that takes precedence.

And, in this case, the Buyer is not "getting away" with anything that wasn't in the written agreement. As much as I understand it is a "hard pill to swallow", the Buyer is merely following the words of the agreement, as written by our writer.

IAAL

 

[LegalBeagle]

Oh, I agree.. but that does not take away the desire to burn the persons house down

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Well, we wouldn't want to have our writer resort to such violence.

However, I must admit, that I've always been facinated with the story and facts behind the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.

IAAL

 

[cturtle]

thank you for the revelation

Thank you for the explaination of superior court. At least
now - even if I could win - I will not be making a fool of
myself and I will save mt money to buy another horse for my daughter someday. Mr Beagle is correct - it is the principle of the thing. However, if the horse throws the buyer off and breaks her head at least I won't be sued. Only, now that my daughterk knows that the buyer won't keep her word, she is afraid the "mean lady" will come and take something else away from us.
I told her that it was okay - everyone would know what happened because the buyer's nose will have grown very long by the end of the summer.
One last stupid question, if the buyer produced only the title to the animal but not the original sales contract
would it change the outcome?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Re: thank you for the revelation

Thank you for the explaination of superior court. One last stupid question, if the buyer produced only the title to the animal but not the original sales contract
would it change the outcome?

My response:

You're welcome.

I'll answer your last question with a question - -

Ever played Roulette in Las Vegas ?

Like Roulette, your chances of having the Buyer show up in court WITHOUT her copy of the written contract is like betting on 00 in Roulette, and having the little ball roll into the 00 slot on your first spin of the wheel. The chances of that happening are slim, and none.

Seriously, it's all over. It's a done deal. It's time for you to move on. I like the idea of you getting another horse, though. I imagine your daughter would really enjoy that. Any child who can ride a horse must be the cutest little sweetheart around !

I wish you and your daughter all of my best.

IAAL