This message is from: Gail Russell <g...@zeliga.com>
This settlement agreement, executed post-breeding (and probably post birth), is probably being regarded by the NFHR as a breeding contract, wherein the parties agreed that the mare had been bred to the Stallion, and, that the mare owner could purchase the stallion owner's cooperation for registration within a certain time period....with the implication that the mare owner could not make that election after the "option period" expired? I have to go back and look at previous posts, but the above is my best guess as to how the NFHR might be interpreting a settlement agreement signed by the parties. From what I can tell, this might not be an unreasonable interpretation of the settlement agreement. It sounds like this was a much bigger dispute, involving alleged boarding and training fees, versus arguments regarding a free lease and that it was all settled in one big agreement, a tiny part of which dealt with the registration of the filly. If there had been a separate settlement agreement covering just the breeding of the filly, I would think that the NFHR would be within its rights to call it an "after the fact breeding contract," which they would feel obligated to enforce, and thus be disinclined to register the filly via the exception clause because if the settlement clause's "breeding fee" was never paid. The interesting thing about this is......I wonder if the NFHR should adopt a policy of not honoring any "after-the-fact" breeding contracts. Essentially, a policy of disfavoring breeding contracts that do not predate the breeding. Seems to me, if the stallion owner does not get the contract in writing ahead of time, and gets the mare pregnant (whether through negligence, or even not fencing the mare out well enough, or EVEN taking the mare to the stallion without a contract, but with the owner's verbal go ahead)....then the NFHR should possibly adopt a policy that the resulting offspring of a non-contracted breeding should usually get the benefit of the doubt..and be registered under the exception to the rules. A policy like that would reward good breeding contract practice and it would not punish the resulting filly.) And it would not reward sloppy stallion managment . And, it would be a "bright line" rule that the NFHR could apply, instead of having to consider wading into the details of what sounds like a much larger dispute in this case. A sort of, "No ticket, no laundry" policy. My proposed policy might be considered a "strict liability clause" ....since stallions are so dangerous, if you do not keep excellent control of their sexuality, both legally and physically, you should not be able to benefit by sloppy practices. This would put the onus on the owner of an inherently dangerous animal to keep control of their animal....both physically and legally. (Yeah...I know....it sounds like this was not an accidental breeding...but it certainly was "accidental" in that there was no written contract executed prior to the breeding.) My new "No ticket, no laundry" policy would also help right any situation resulting from an accidental or or unpermissioned breeding where the mare owner ends up with a pregnant mare, and all of the potential costs and dangers to either aborting the foal or continuing to term .....without having a say in whether or not the mare was bred. I like my new policy. I would be interested in arguments for or against my new policy. Maybe the members should advocate a change in the rules for the future? And, maybe the BOD should consider applying my new policy retroactively, via the exception procedure. I am posting this to the main Fjord list as well. Gail Important FjordHorse List Links: Subscription Management: http://tinyurl.com/5msa7e FH-L Archives: http://tinyurl.com/rcepw FH-L Shirts: http://tinyurl.com/8yky94l
