Fascinating Tom Selleck court decision: The end of "Buyer Beware"??

AP:

DEL MAR, Calif. – Actor Tom Selleck has been awarded more than $187,000 after a California jury found the actor was duped into buying a lame horse.

Selleck accused Del Mar equestrian Dolores Cuenca of trying to pass off a show horse with a medical condition as fit to ride in competitions.

The defense had argued that Selleck didn't check the veterinarian records of the 10-year-old Zorro.

The bulk of the San Diego County jury's award is for the price of the horse. The rest is to cover boarding costs. A second trial next week will determine how much Selleck should be paid in punitive damages.

Tags: Dolores Cuenca, tom selleck

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Barbara F. on September 5, 2009 at 6:34pm

What do you think? I think this is a landmark decision that will change the way people sell horses!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jackie Cochran on September 5, 2009 at 6:47pm

Wow, punishing someone for selling a lame show horse. Whatever is the world coming to?
The only answer I can think of is for the seller to insist that the buyer gets an independent veterinary opinion as to the horse's soundness.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoffrey Pannell on September 5, 2009 at 6:59pm

Well Barbara this might just clean up the industry a bit, there is a bit of this going on with dodgy deelers. Although I must say Mr Sellick must be a bit of a dope buying a horse for that much and not getting a vet check?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barbara F. on September 5, 2009 at 9:41pm

I know, isn't that bizarre? I would always have a vet of my choice examine the horse and I would always ask for the vet records or ask to speak to the horse's current vet. I also ask very black and white questions...
Has the horse ever had this? Has the horse ever done that?
leaving no room for muddled answers.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Catherin McMillan on September 6, 2009 at 6:20pm

sounds like he doesnt have a lot of experience with horses doesnt it???

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Lamm on September 6, 2009 at 6:40pm

that's like saying people were duped into getting bad loans.... read the print or hire someone who knows what they are doing..... no vet check is just dumb. he's lucky the award went in his favor.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marti Langley on September 7, 2009 at 12:20am

Yeah, I think there may be more to this story, don't you. As far as I know Mr. Selleck is horse knowledgable. He should have had a vet check when spending that much money, but maybe he did and th vet didn't catch it?? Stranger things have happened.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mary McGuire Smith on September 7, 2009 at 10:06pm

I agree with Marti. Before jumping to any conclusions one way or another, I would have to see all the specifics of the case. There are so many legal parameters in any action that a little snippet across the AP does not sway me in any direction at all.....JMHO

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Gloin on September 7, 2009 at 12:38am

Vet check, vet check, vet check.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barbara F. on September 7, 2009 at 10:14pm

I've now heard that he did have a vet check and took legal action against the vet too. Just rumour for now.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoffrey Pannell on September 8, 2009 at 5:24am

oooh the plot thickens!!!!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fiona Hill on September 8, 2009 at 7:39am

I know the US legal system is a lot different than it is over here in the UK, but it strikes me that this case could open the floodgates for a lot of lawyers to start making a lot of money!

Mind you that is a hell of a lot of money for a horse so I'd be pretty upset if I was him.