Is it a Crime to Violate a Buy-Back Agreement for a Horse

My question involves criminal law for the state of: New York
Greetings:
This question is in regards to the buying and selling of a horse. The Plaintiff in this case bought a horse and kept it for 4 months. She then sold the horse to a 16 year girl who signed a contract stating: if she ( Buyer #1) ever wanted to sell the horse, the original owner (Seller #1) should be given notification and the first option to buy the horse back. Buyer #1. worried about this because the horse had not been well cared for at Seller #1's home.
That said,
2 years later our 16 year old is now heading off to college and cannot properly care for the horse while away. She contacts Seller #1 and offers to sell the horse back to her for the same price ($1,000.00) she paid for the horse 2 yrs. ago. Seller #1 flatly refuses to pay $1,000.00 and offers in writing $750.00.

Please be aware that Buyer #1 has put much money and training into the horse over those 2 yrs. Buyer #1 refuses that sale price stating it is too low a price. Buyer #1. feels she has fulfilled her end of the contract. Buyer #1 later sells the horse to a friend for $1.00 so that the friend is able to make any decisions ( medical, training, ect) regarding the horse without Buyer 1's consent as Buyer #1 trusts Buyer #2 to do right by the horse. Buyer #1 is happy to have a good home for her horse. They made the deal and all were happy except for Seller #1.

Seller #1 begins harassing Buyer #2 on FB, email, phone and even calls her boss and landlord stating that Buyer #2 has stolen her horse and she is going to press criminal charges against her. Buyer #2. being a young woman herself became worried that Seller #1 would come and steal the horse back or worse hurt her other horses as well as harm her upstarting business by slandering her to everyone. The threats and harassment became so bad that Buyer #2 called yet another friend, Buyer #3 and gave the horse to her to her with no stipulations as to whether the horse could be sold or not.

Buyer #3. is the new owner and is now getting harassed and threatened by Seller #1., who by now has stated she was suing and pressing "Criminal Conversion" charges on all 3 buyers. Buyer #3 called another friend (Buyer #4) who moved the horse to a safe home and is looking after the horse well and is now the Owner of the horse. No one will tell Seller #1. where the horse is because of her escalating behaviors. In fact both Buyers 1 and 2 have contacted local Law Enforcement agencies because they are afraid of what Seller #1 will do next.

My question is this: Did Buyer #1 fulfill her obligation for sell back offer and are Buyers 2 & 3 responsible to Seller #1 at all? If Seller #1 was so attached to this horse, why in the world would she sell it just 4 months later? Why would she not just meet the $1,000.00 asking price? (Too make a profit off the horse is why.)

Buyer #1. was not of legal age to sign any contracts, but she did and kept her end of the deal. Buyer #1 had also put a lot of money into her horse. Why should she have to sell for a lesser price than what she paid for the horse originally?

Are any of the Buyers guilty of Criminal Conversion? No one made any money off the horse. The buyers just wanted to be sure the horse went to a safe and loving home.
Any advice you are able to lend in the matter would be helpful. Buyers 1,2,and 3 are ready to petition courts for an order of protection due to the relentless harassment and slandering of them.
I apologize for the lengthy message but it is a complicated tale. Thank you all so much for any assistance.

This is a civil matter regarding whether the contract was followed. We don't have the exact wording of the contract language but if all it required is that the original seller be notified and given a chance to purchase the horse back with no provisions regarding price, I would say the original buyer fulfilled those terms. Did the original buyer conduct any negotiations once the $750 offer was made or did they simply cut off contact after declining it?

From what you have written, even if we assume that the original buyer was 16 when she purchased the horse, she did not rescind the contract and she was 18 when she decided not to honor the buy-back agreement. Further, she still does not want to rescind the contract, as she does not want to give back the horse.

It sounds like this is something of an ownership shell game, and it's not clear to what degree the later "buyers" knew of the buyback agreement; but it sounds like everybody knew about the original seller's claim and demand. That would create potential recourse on the part of the seller against a series of "buyers" whose primary role is to try to frustrate her rights under the original contract.

The argument that "$750 is too low" doesn't wash, because the horse was later "sold" for $1. Had the horse sold for more than the original seller was offering, that would be a defense to the claim that the buyback agreement wasn't honored. When the horse is effectively given away? That undermines the claim that $750 wasn't enough.

This is not a matter of criminal conversion or theft. The original buyer bought and paid for the horse. It was then her horse. Ownership of the horse has never been transferred back to the original seller.

The seller has a potential legal claim against the original buyer based upon the contract and value of the horse. However, it sounds like the original seller took the position that the horse was worth $750, and she still has that $750 in her pocket, so it's not clear what her damage claim might be. Could she commence a more complex legal action trying to recover the horse from the final "buyer" in the chain? It's possible -- but how many thousands of dollars is she willing to expend on litigation with no guarantee of victory, over a horse she, herself, values at $750?

I would expect the police to tell the seller that any claim she has against the buyers is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Something she would have to address through a civil lawsuit. I don't see any criminal activity by the buyers.

How about this:
Buyer #4 returns ownership of the horse to Buyer #3.
Buyer #3 returns ownership of the horse to Buyer #2.
Buyer #2 and Buyer #1 rescind their sale so Buyer #2 gets her $1 back and Buyer #1 is now the owner of the horse again.

Buyer #1 free-leases the horse to whichever of #2, 3, or 4 care to sign a lease. That way Buyer #1 retains ownership and the person leasing the horse gets to keep/ride/show/etc. the horse in exchange for caring for it while Buyer #1 is at college, which is not uncommon.

Quote:

---

Quoting bcr229

---

How about this:
Buyer #4 returns ownership of the horse to Buyer #3.
Buyer #3 returns ownership of the horse to Buyer #2.
Buyer #2 and Buyer #1 rescind their sale so Buyer #2 gets her $1 back and Buyer #1 is now the owner of the horse again.

Buyer #1 free-leases the horse to whichever of #2, 3, or 4 care to sign a lease. That way Buyer #1 retains ownership and the person leasing the horse gets to keep/ride/show/etc. the horse in exchange for caring for it while Buyer #1 is at college, which is not uncommon.

---

Sorry. You can’t unring that Bell. Horse has been sold so attempting to unwind the sale, again with the intent to refuse to comply with the original contract, will be seen as precisely that.

Buyer #1 has shown a desire and intent to sell the horse. If she had originally leased the horse she probably could have gotten away with her game to avoid selling the horse back to seller #1.