Need Help! Civil Case twisted into Criminal Theft!

[Proserpina]

and a good thing that I have one hell of a lawyer!

Well, SHURE!

Because that's exactly why you're sitting here writing these posts, isn't it?

 

[ponies4kids]

Actually just trying to ease my own mind and even though I know my lawyer can handle it, I have a hard time going into things without some idea what to expect. I know that posting a situation on this forum will usually give you an idea what your up against. Helps me know what and what not to say....kinda like a practice run.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

Actually just trying to ease my own mind and even though I know my lawyer can handle it, I have a hard time going into things without some idea what to expect. I know that posting a situation on this forum will usually give you an idea what your up against. Helps me know what and what not to say....kinda like a practice run.

We've never heard that before. It seems counter intuitive to pay a lawyer ten of thousands of dollars to defend you when the remedy to this situation would only cost you $3000.

 

[PohTayToez]

That is because he wants the selling price for the horse or his horse. You should offer one of those two things.

It seems to me that $3,000 was the selling price based on the assumption that the horse was fit for a beginner. Since that assumption was false, $3,000 is not the correct selling price.

I don't have any experience in this sort of thing, but that's just what I think.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

It seems to me that $3,000 was the selling price based on the assumption that the horse was fit for a beginner. Since that assumption was false, $3,000 is not the correct selling price.

I don't have any experience in this sort of thing, but that's just what I think.

That is why your assumption is false. The OP had an agreement to sell the horse to a buyer. Part of that agreement is that he would ride that horse a predetermined number of times per week, he violated that agreement. After he did not ride the horse, that he determined was fine to sell before the breach ofthe agreement, it began to have problems. He then refunded the money to the buyer without consulting the owner of the horse.

 

[PohTayToez]

That is why your assumption is false. The OP had an agreement to sell the horse to a buyer. Part of that agreement is that he would ride that horse a predetermined number of times per week, he violated that agreement. After he did not ride the horse, that he determined was fine to sell before the breach ofthe agreement, it began to have problems. He then refunded the money to the buyer without consulting the owner of the horse.

Sorry but you're mistaken. The OP states that the agreement to ride the horse was with the buyer, not the owner of the horse.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

Sorry but you're mistaken. The OP states that the agreement to ride the horse was with the buyer, not the owner of the horse.

No, I was not mistaken and I did not state that he agreed to ride the horse for the owner at anytime.

I could have been more clear but the conduit, my phone, that I am responding with limits my ability to communicate a little.