As a result, the woman who was in charge of the horse, which was owned by an equine company, refused to pay the $2043 invoice for related costs and vet fees.<\/p>\n
Now the case has ended up in the Disputes Tribunal<\/a> where the breeding services company has been successful in its claim against the woman.<\/p>\n That\u2019s despite the company having breached part of the contract by not putting the mare in a paddock as asked.<\/p>\n The tribunal said in a decision that was made in May, but only recently released, that it was not possible to make a link between the failed pregnancy and the management of the horse.<\/p>\n Tribunal referee Sara Grayson accepted evidence that four out of 10 frozen semen inseminations from the stallion would fail. <\/p>\n \u201cIt is possible that this attempt might not have been successful despite the best efforts of [the company].\u201d<\/p>\n This was despite it not following instructions on putting the horse in a paddock, according to the signed contract.<\/p>\n The horse was delivered to the breeder in November 2022, after a contract was signed a month earlier setting out the terms for the mare\u2019s care and management.<\/p>\n Grayson said it was clear that the horse was to be placed in a paddock with grass to graze on. <\/p>\n However, the breeding company director<\/a> told the tribunal the term \u201cgrazing\u201d meant that horses would be fed grass in a paddock or hard feed (grain) in a barn or yard, and that there was no guarantee that the horse would get her own paddock. <\/p>\n Grayson found it reasonable for the woman to assume that the term \u201cgrazing\u201d meant the horse would be in a paddock eating grass, and that the company director had not made it clear on its admission form that \u201csolo grazing\u201d was not necessarily in a paddock.<\/p>\n \u201cI am satisfied that this would be the common understanding of this term,\u201d Grayson said.<\/p>\n The woman in charge of the horse, who was not named in the decision, also emailed the company to say the mare was very sensitive so a \u201cquiet friend\u201d would be best, otherwise she would stress.<\/p>\n She then arranged for that herself, and told the breeding company she would be bringing another horse with her, as company for the mare.<\/p>\n But, a worker removed the second horse the next day, and brought the brood mare in for her appointments for breeding services, to avoid what she said were agistment costs.<\/p>\n Agistment costs are fees paid to have animals cared for on someone else\u2019s land.<\/p>\n The mare was put in a free stall barn. On two occasions she was put into a paddock but became stressed and was brought back into the barn, Grayson said.<\/p>\n She said given the clear instructions, the company breached the contract by not putting the horse in a paddock, and had failed to promptly communicate with the woman when the second horse was removed.<\/p>\n That meant the woman wasn\u2019t aware of what had happened and didn\u2019t have an opportunity to offer to pay for the agistment costs.<\/p>\n Grayson said she was, however, unable to find a causal link between the breach and the loss.<\/p>\n Therefore, the woman was liable for the $2043 in agistment costs, laboratory and veterinary<\/a> fees.<\/p>\n Grayson was satisfied the breeding services company did its best to help the horse have its best chance to get pregnant. <\/p>\n \u201cIt is impossible to know why this wasn\u2019t successful,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n The tribunal said in its 2024 annual report that claims filed under $5000 still made up 56% of all claims.<\/p>\n