By: Sara White
From global equestrian competition circuits to the digital equine auction rings of Europe, international horse sales are booming. The lucrative equestrian marketplace was once driven by handshake deals and trust. Today, it has transformed into a high-stakes industry, with Olympic-caliber horses commanding staggering prices. The cost of one horse can range from seven hundred thousand to over fifteen million, with the average elite sport horse hovering around seven to eight million. As the industry continues to grow, so do the legal entanglements. Parties now face a web of cross-border contract law, customs compliance, and ownership disputes. Recent post-COVID and post-Brexit trade friction and regulatory divides throw in an additional wrench. The once-simple question is no longer merely can you buy the horse, but can you enforce the international deal if something goes wrong?
The core piece of every international horse sale is a deceptively simple agreement: the bill of sale, exchange, or purchase agreement. Minor oversights can lead to extraordinary challenges, particularly in international sales agreements. A cautionary example is Dickinson v. Stevens, where an American buyer purchased a high-value horse from a European agent. Although the horse supposedly passed veterinary exams conducted prior to importation, it arrived in the United States with serious gait issues and was later diagnosed with pre-existing arthritis. The buyer sought rescission damages under the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (C.I.S.G.); however, the seller’s agent argued that the C.I.S.G. did not apply because his principal place of business was in Ireland, a non-signatory state. The buyer countered that the seller operated primarily in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States—all C.I.S.G. parties. The judge found the evidence conflicting and ordered discovery, setting off a costly legal battle that dragged on for months. Dickinson illustrates a recurring danger: unclear governing-law clauses invite jurisdictional chaos. Absent precise governing-law and forum-selection clauses, cross-border equine sales can quickly spiral into disputes over which nation’s law applies and whether treaties such as the C.I.S.G. control the contract. Given the unpredictability of litigation, many sophisticated buyers may instead choose neutral arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
Arguably, the most underestimated legal risks in equine trade are fiscal. Tariffs, VAT, and import obligations can lead to extensive hidden costs and compliance risks. Under the World Trade Organization Harmonized System (HS Code 0101), horses are considered “live animals” and are therefore classified as goods in global commerce. Due to this classification, equine cross-border sales can trigger import duties and VAT. Within the E.U., movements can be tariff-free; elsewhere, much steeper duties and VAT rates are common. Tariffs concern the most recent value of the horse, not the most recent purchase price. If you were to purchase a horse from a friend for only one dollar, but the most recent horse valuation was one million dollars, you would pay a tariff on one million dollars, not one dollar. The only countries with tariff exceptions for equine importation into the United States for any type of horse are Canada and Mexico.
Notably, most customs regimes allow temporary (six- to twelve-month) duty-free importation for competition, training, or breeding (all common activities for international horse lease agreements). Given the frequency of international equestrian competition travel, this presents a huge benefit to the industry. For temporary admission into the United States, an owner can pay for a Temporary Importation under Bond (TIB). Under a TIB, an owner will pay a portion of the tariff up front that will be returned once the horse returns to its home country. If the horse does not return within the time allotted, the deposit bond will be kept, with additional fees imposed. Sometimes, U.S. Border Patrol will require deposits of up to 200% of the value of the tariff. Another option to temporarily import a horse is through an A.T.A. Carnet (referred to as a “merchandise passport”). A.T.A. Carnets are acknowledged by over eighty countries and allow a horse valued at a minimum of ten thousand dollars to travel abroad for up to one year. However, selling or breeding a horse while under temporary import status can trigger retroactive duties and penalties.
To keep a closer eye on individual horses’ whereabouts, in 2025 the Fédération Équestre Internationale (International Federation for Equestrian Sports) expanded digital passport tracking to include customs and competition records, giving authorities more visibility into cross-border movement. The blockchain-based digital passports also store veterinary records and competition results on a tamper-resistant ledger, the ultimate goal being the creation of an immutable chain of custody that follows each horse from foal to retirement in an effort to curb fraud and disputes.
When ownership formally transfers across borders, taxation follows. It can be extraordinarily difficult to prove valuation and even more tempting for parties to undervalue luxury sport horses on invoices to evade VAT. The United Kingdom has provided guidance for import VAT valuation of racehorses but acknowledges that valuation is often contested and complex (e.g., using insured value if there is no sale). Such ambiguity can easily trigger customs challenges. The United States holds that the duty is based on the value declared to U.S. Customs (and the importer bears it), underscoring the importance of delineating clear contract clauses allocating which party handles duty or VAT if assumptions prove wrong. Even if a sale is only for a fraction of a horse (e.g., an international equine equity-share deal), VAT fees can still apply. A Dutch court held that selling a half-ownership interest in a sport horse constitutes a “delivery” under Dutch VAT law, meaning the 21 percent VAT still applied to the transaction.
In an ever-evolving digital age, the pandemic accelerated a shift toward online equine auctions and remote pre-purchase exams (PPEs). While these innovations have expanded access, they have also multiplied reports of incomplete or misleading veterinary disclosures. In one case, an American family accused Canadian showjumper Eric Lamaze of significantly misrepresenting two horse sales. In one instance, a horse purchased for $265,000 became unrideable just a month after purchase. A subsequent veterinary exam revealed that the horse sold as “Peppercorn” was, in fact, “Romen,” with a falsified European competition record and scars consistent with a neurectomy—a surgery that severs nerves in the front legs. Lamaze is alleged to have renamed and re-microchipped the denerved horse to conceal its true identity and condition. Legal standards for such instances vary widely. In the United Kingdom, the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 allows buyers to rescind sales for hidden defects, whereas in the United States, the Uniform Commercial Code Article 2 treats many equine sales “as is” unless warranties are explicitly stated.
Another major driver reshaping the international equine sales industry is sustainability. The 2025 EU Sustainable Transport Directive, building on the 2005 EU Council Regulation on the Protection of Animals During Transport, has set strict travel limits for horses. These measures are extensive and include uncompromising limits on travel times and mandated rest stops. The Fédération Équestre Internationale has echoed these reforms by expanding veterinary and welfare regulations for competition horses. Collectively, the reformed rules have raised transport costs and complicated logistics for horses moving across the globe on a regular basis. As a result, legal and contractual risks are also rising. Delays caused by weather conditions or inspections increasingly test force-majeure clauses and carriers’ duties of care under the IATA Live Animals Regulations. As sustainability becomes central to trade policy, environmental compliance is no longer just good ethics but a key clause in every comprehensive international equine transport agreement.
The international equine market has never been more legally intricate. What once relied on reputation and a handshake now demands legal expertise. In a world where horses are crossing borders with increasing frequency—and the average Olympic horse costs more than a mansion—contract precision and regulatory awareness have become indispensable. You can lead a horse to the border, but only sound legal planning will get it safely across.
