Posting Trot
Oct. 1, 2009, 10:44 AM
There is apparently a well-known (well-studied in law school) legal case about the thoroughbred named Bascom's Folly. The case dates from 1962. If you google the name you get all kind of hits from law school and legal textbook publishing sites because the case is used as a teaching case about contract law.
My husband teaches contract law and he suddenly decided he was curious about whatever happened to the horse after the case was decided.
I told him that if there was anyone who would know they almost certainly would be on COTH.
Basic facts of the case (this is all public record, BTW): Bascom's Folly was a racing TB. He was sold from one owner based at Belmont to another who wanted him shipped to Suffolk Downs. Upon arrival at Suffolk Downs, the horse stepped off the trailer lame. The buyer refused to accept delivery of the horse and told the shipper to take it back to Belmont.
The seller refused to accept the horse when it was returned, and the shipper called the buyer's trainer to find out what to do. The buyer again stated, basically, that he was not the buyer and the horse did not belong to him.
The shipper took the horse to a barn in Rhode Island, where the horse stayed for about 4 years while the various court cases worked their way through the system.
The court determined that the buyer did indeed own the horse, and in a subsequent case--which is the one that is in the legal texts--the owner of the farm where the horse spent 4 years sued the legal owner for board. The legal owner disputed that he owed board on the horse, basically because he said that he had never had any contact with the farm owner and therefore couldn't be held liable. He stated that he had returned all bills he had received.
The court found that he was liable for (I think) about 5 months worth of board and beyond that there was no liability.
Anyway, if you've read this far, here is the question: The case notes state that in 1966 the farm owner (the place where the horse was boarded during the dispute) sold the horse to "a third party"--someone not concerned with the lawsuit.
Anybody know what ultimately happened to the horse?
My husband teaches contract law and he suddenly decided he was curious about whatever happened to the horse after the case was decided.
I told him that if there was anyone who would know they almost certainly would be on COTH.
Basic facts of the case (this is all public record, BTW): Bascom's Folly was a racing TB. He was sold from one owner based at Belmont to another who wanted him shipped to Suffolk Downs. Upon arrival at Suffolk Downs, the horse stepped off the trailer lame. The buyer refused to accept delivery of the horse and told the shipper to take it back to Belmont.
The seller refused to accept the horse when it was returned, and the shipper called the buyer's trainer to find out what to do. The buyer again stated, basically, that he was not the buyer and the horse did not belong to him.
The shipper took the horse to a barn in Rhode Island, where the horse stayed for about 4 years while the various court cases worked their way through the system.
The court determined that the buyer did indeed own the horse, and in a subsequent case--which is the one that is in the legal texts--the owner of the farm where the horse spent 4 years sued the legal owner for board. The legal owner disputed that he owed board on the horse, basically because he said that he had never had any contact with the farm owner and therefore couldn't be held liable. He stated that he had returned all bills he had received.
The court found that he was liable for (I think) about 5 months worth of board and beyond that there was no liability.
Anyway, if you've read this far, here is the question: The case notes state that in 1966 the farm owner (the place where the horse was boarded during the dispute) sold the horse to "a third party"--someone not concerned with the lawsuit.
Anybody know what ultimately happened to the horse?