IN PRACTICE: FOLLOW THE FINE PRINT

Shirley was excited when an opportunity arose to lease a horse for her daughter. After 10 years of riding, her daughter wanted her own horse, and a lease would allow Shirley to determine whether she was ready for the responsibilities of ownership.

The lease contract was provided by the horse’s owner. One of the provisions called for the horse to be shod every six weeks. Unbeknownst to the horse owner, the trainer working with Shirley’s daughter believed that horses were better off barefoot, so she didn’t shoe any of her horses and advised her clients not to shoe their horses either, unless there was a specific reason to do so.

Shirley’s daughter and the horse worked well together and even won several competitions. At the end of the lease period, Shirley sought to renew the lease for another year. However, the owner wanted to see how the horse was doing firsthand before extending the lease and scheduled a time to visit the barn and watch Shirley’s daughter ride. When she arrived, the horse owner was shocked to discover that her horse was barefoot. She mentioned the contract requirement to Shirley, who called over her trainer, who explained her views about shoes.

The horse owner then explained that the horse had injured a hoof as a yearling and as a result, he required shoes to remain sound— without them, she said, he would eventually come up lame. She was so upset that Shirley had broken the contract that at first, she wasn’t going to renew the lease. Shirley and the trainer apologized for not abiding by the provision and for not asking for more information. They asked for time to schedule a farrier visit so the horse could be shod. The owner reluctantly agreed, and they acted quickly.

Once the horse owner saw Shirley was willing to abide by the contract and do what was necessary to keep the horse sound, she agreed to extend the lease.