Tom Selleck wins $187k in lame horse dispute
Filed under: Extracurriculars, Wealth
A California jury has awarded Magnum P.I. star Tom Selleck $187,000 after he was duped into buying a lame horse.Seller Dolores Cuenca was accused of selling Selleck a horse named Zorro with a medical condition without disclosing its history. Selleck paid $120,00 for the horse, which was intended for his 20-year old daughter to ride in competitions but the horse's medical condition made that impossible. The defense argued that Selleck should have checked the medical records himself, but the jury disagreed. The $187,000 award covers the cost of the horse plus boarding costs. A second trial will be held next week to determine punitive damages -- it is not known how much Mr. Selleck is seeking.
There is no word yet on whether Mr. Selleck will be offering refunds on all the lame movies people were duped into buying tickets for -- Perhaps Tom Selleck can use whatever punitive damages he receives to set up a college fund to support the children of anyone who actually bought tickets to see Christopher Columbus: The Discovery.
If you're thinking about buying a horse -- even if it isn't a $120,00 horse -- don't fall into the same trap Selleck fell into. The hassle and legal fees of the case make it unlikely that this will be a profitable endeavor for him. Look at the horse's medical records, have it looked at by an unbiased veterinarian, and take your time. Also: Check out this About.com piece on the top ten mistakes people make when buying horses.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
9-08-2009 @ 12:57PM
Shelby said...
Well, Mr. Selleck. I hope this is a lesson for you. Most horsepersons know to get a PPE (Pre-Purchase Examination) done on ANY horse before purchasing...especially one that is being purchased for six figures!
I despise when sellers are dishonest, but I agree that he should have had the horse checked out before purchase.
Reply
9-08-2009 @ 4:22PM
Lucinda Lockwood said...
We purchased a horse from a horse trainer we had known for years and considered a "friend". Because of that friendship we didn't feel the vet check would be necessary because we trusted him. The horse turned out not to be sound and had probably been drugged when we had rode him at the sellers ranch. My husband obtained the horse's med records and xrays from the horse trainer's vet and had them checked by another vet who confirmed that the seller knew of the horse's condition. The seller refunded our money when he found out that he was going to be prosecuted for fraud; conviction of which would have subjected him, as treasurer of his corporation, to a civil suit, which by our state's law would entitle the plaintiff to be awarded the total assets of the trainer's corporation which in this case dealt entirely in the horse market. Yes, as we learned, you can't trust anyone and ALWAYS ALWAYS get a complete prepurchase vet exam, including xrays of the horse's feet and/or legs if the vet indicates there may be a problem. Most horse traders are slime and will take advantage of you whenever they can.
9-08-2009 @ 2:31PM
James said...
That was an interesting and informative article until the end, with the juvenile comment about Mr. Selleck's films.
Reply
9-08-2009 @ 3:16PM
Hedy said...
I agree James. It was uncalled for and inappropriate.
9-08-2009 @ 4:27PM
Mel said...
I agree!!!
9-08-2009 @ 5:40PM
Mike said...
Very cheap shot and uncalled for . Sounds like a liberal wanting to get a dig in because of his NRA association . Stick to the subject at hand next time . There is no true reporting anymore . It is all biased one way or the other and you have to figure out the truth for yourself .
9-08-2009 @ 6:54PM
lsteve10007 said...
Just goes to show you anyone with a cracker jack education can become a journalist! Seems a lot of the news on AOL lately is filled with opinionated jack asses and ultra biased commentary.
9-08-2009 @ 7:12PM
Di said...
I too agree with you James.. Absolutely no need for the comments about his movies..
9-08-2009 @ 6:59PM
Teri said...
Hey Zac, you are an ass.....
I agree with the comments asking "what did Tom Selleck ever do to you?" He is a good looking, talented actor..are you Jealous? He believed someone when they told him about the horse they were selling...apparently you can't trust anyone, not even a writer.
9-08-2009 @ 8:04PM
Thomas Sneddon said...
Yes,I agree...this Zac Bissonnette is an infantile little jackass for making derogatory comments about Mr.Selleck's films.
Regardless of whether or not his films were successful,this writer had no business inserting his personal opinion about the man's films.
9-08-2009 @ 2:34PM
TomW said...
Good for him, he seems to be the kind of person who stands up for what he believes and would not take dishonesty without fighting back. I am impressed by Selleck.
Reply
9-08-2009 @ 2:45PM
William Karl Thomas said...
I am taking note of the names of alledged news sites that editorialize about individuals in their news stories. I find the writer's cracks about victim Selleck's past movies irrelevant and offensive, and I will try to avoid those venues that claim to be delivering news and are really delivering personal slanderous opinions. If the internet cannot impose any guidlines for accuracy and integrity, then we readers should, and I will. Bye, bye, "Wallet Pop."
Reply
9-08-2009 @ 6:11PM
Mary Anne said...
I totally agree with you. ENOUGH of pseudo-journalists!!! There is NO room for editorializing within a news article. This is coming from a 30+ year long career photojournalist/journalist. KEEP OPINIONS OUT OF ARTICLES!!!! Especially juvenile self-serving ones.
Bye-Bye Walletpop....you're a has-been.
9-08-2009 @ 2:47PM
emily said...
any one who sells anything ought to know better than to be less than honest about the history of the item being sold, be it a car or an animal. any breeder knows that full history should be disclosed when selling or breeding, and also ought to be held liable for trying to get away with any dishonesty. anything less than pure honesty only leads to heartache and anger. i seriously doubt that Mr. Selleck blindly bought the horse without inquiring from the seller the horses history. she obviously lied to him. he probably gave her the benefit of the doubt and it appears to me like she tried to make a buck off someone who's got lots of dough.
from my own experience, we had a newfoundland female we bred, only to find out that there was a heart defect in the males history, out of 8 puppies 3 died from it, 1 as a puppy. do you know how sad that is?? what is wrong with people? way to go Mr. Selleck! i hope she learned her lesson!
Reply
9-08-2009 @ 3:36PM
Rachel said...
you shouldn't be breeding anyway
9-08-2009 @ 2:55PM
Emily said...
oh, and nice of the "writer" of this article to present an unbiased opinion...what are you, a failed actor? did someone get their screenplay turned down? aw, poor baby, i suggest you change careers, something that requires have low morals and general cluelessness...
Reply
9-08-2009 @ 2:54PM
Will said...
As the law goes there is a Disclosure requirement that was not given. They should have to pay Tom Selleck all of it plus there some punitive damages that are to be determined later.
Therre should be punitive since they sold the horse and knowing withheld medical condition it sounds like. That would be clear grounds for punitive damages.
I guess to put it in simple terms would you be mad if a car dealer sold you a brand new car, but elected not to tell you that it was damaged before it got to the lot, and they fixed it so you would not know what was actually wrong with it before they fixed it!
Reply
9-08-2009 @ 2:55PM
ladykarensea said...
Very lame writing. If you want to be taken seriously as a writer, I would leave out your "personal views", which were definitely derogatory.
You know what really pisses me off? I'm reading what I thought to be a news article and some wiseass writer with a smug attitude turned it all sour.
Reply
9-08-2009 @ 5:05PM
dot said...
I agree What did Tom Selleck do to the writer? What a jerk!
9-08-2009 @ 3:02PM
topolino4 said...
I bought a horse many many years ago (hunter) from a very reputable stable where I had bordered previous horses. The trained jumper came from down south and his thoroughbred papers never came. Those papers disclosed an illness which returned and eventually killed him. My parents trusted the stable owner and never questioned the lack of papers. We were all duped.
Reply