The equine sector is unlike almost any other industry. Deals are struck at the stable door, over coffee after a competition, or via a quick phone call between people who have known each other for years. Horses change hands on a handshake, training arrangements rest on mutual understanding, and boarding costs are agreed with nothing more than a conversation. This is the culture of the equine world — personal, trust-based, and often deliberately informal.
But behind every handshake lies a legal relationship. Whether parties realise it or not, a horse sale, a boarding arrangement, a training deal: each carries rights and obligations that the law recognises and enforces. The problem is not that verbal agreements are non-binding. The problem is proving what was agreed when something goes wrong.
This article addresses exactly that: what Dutch contract law says about verbal agreements, the evidentiary challenges verbal agreements pose in disputes, and the additional complications arising from cross-border transactions.
Dutch Contract Law: The Basics
When Does a Contract Come into Existence?
Under Dutch law, a contract is formed by offer and acceptance. Article 6:217 of the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek, BW) provides that an agreement is concluded by an offer and its acceptance. No written document is required: Article 3:37 BW establishes that declarations of intent, including verbal ones, produce legal effect. Under the doctrine of wil en verklaring (Articles 3:33–3:35 BW), what matters is not only what a party privately intended, but what the counterparty was reasonably entitled to understand. A verbal ‘yes, agreed’ at the stable door can create enforceable legal obligations.
Freedom of Form in Contracts
Dutch contract law is based on vormvrijheid — freedom of form (Article 3:37 BW). Parties are generally free to contract in any form they choose, including verbally. There is no general statutory requirement to put a contract in writing. Specific exceptions exist — notably the sale of real estate under Article 7:2 BW — but horse sales are not among them. There is no legal requirement to document a horse purchase agreement in writing for it to be enforceable.
Pacta Sunt Servanda
Once a valid contract exists, Dutch law holds parties to it. The principle of pacta sunt servanda — agreements must be kept — is accepted. A party who fails to perform is in breach and liable for resulting damage (Article 6:74 BW), meaning a verbal agreement on a horse sale, boarding arrangement, or training deal is fully binding, and failure to comply can give rise to a claim for damages.
Conformity and Warranties in Horse Sales
When a horse is sold, the buyer is entitled to expect that the animal conforms to what was agreed. Article 7:17 BW establishes the conformity requirement: the sold item must possess the characteristics that the buyer was entitled to expect on the basis of the agreement. Article 7:18a BW provides a presumption (relevant in consumer transactions) that if a defect manifests within 12 months of delivery, it is presumed to have existed at the time of sale.
In practice, equine disputes frequently revolve around hidden conditions or defects that were allegedly present at the time of sale but only emerged later, about verbal agreements between parties that are not complied with, and disputes between parties that trusted on their relationship when entering into an agreement. Without a written agreement specifying conditions, warranties, liability, expectations, etc., these disputes face one major issue when resolving: evidence.
Evidence and Enforceability in Verbal Agreements
Who Bears the Burden of Proof?
The fundamental difficulty with verbal contracts is not their legal validity: it is proof. Under Article 150 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, Rv), the burden of proof lies with the party who asserts a fact. If you claim that a verbal agreement was reached on a specific price, commission, or liability arrangement, you must be able to prove it. When parties have different recollections, a court must assess the available evidence — typically limited to WhatsApp messages, email exchanges, invoices, and witness testimony. These are circumstantial: they may be incomplete, out of context, or contradicted.
The Evidentiary Hierarchy
Under Article 157 lid 2 Rv, a signed private deed (onderhandse akte) provides full proof against the signing parties of the content of their declarations. A verbal agreement supported only by witness testimony enjoys no such evidentiary weight. It is not that oral evidence is inadmissible — it is that it is weaker, harder to establish, and inevitably contested. A written and signed contract is not merely useful as a record, it has a specific evidentiary status in Dutch litigation.
Verbal Agreements in Cross-Border Transactions
The equine sector is inherently international. Top sport horses are bought and sold across borders on a daily basis. A Dutch seller, a German buyer, a horse bred in Ireland, stabled in the Netherlands, competing in the United States — this is entirely ordinary. Rider, sponsorship, and service agreements routinely span multiple legal systems.
When a dispute arises in a cross-border relationship and the parties have no written agreement, they face not only the evidential problems described above — they face a far more fundamental question: which country’s courts have jurisdiction, and which country’s law applies?
Without a written agreement that addresses these questions, the answer is determined by European and international private law rules. The result is often uncertain, more complicated to establish, and dependent on technical legal analysis that could have been avoided entirely with a well-drafted clause.
Applicable Law in Cross-Border Contracts
The applicable law to commercial contracts with an international element within the European Union is determined by the Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 593/2008). The primary rule (Article 3 Rome I) is that parties are free to choose the governing law, expressly or by clear implication. Absent a choice, Rome I defaults to the seller’s habitual residence for sale contracts (Article 4(1)(a)), or the service provider’s country for service contracts — rules that may produce unexpected results. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) may also apply where both parties are established in contracting states. Its remedies regime differs materially from many domestic laws, leading many parties to exclude it expressly. Without a governing law clause, parties risk spending significant time and resources debating applicable law before the substantive dispute can even be addressed.
Jurisdiction
Closely linked to the choice of law is the choice of forum — which court has jurisdiction to hear a dispute. Within the European Union, jurisdiction is primarily determined by the Brussels I bis Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012). The general rule is that a defendant must be sued in the courts of their domicile (Article 4 Brussels I bis). For contractual disputes, there is also jurisdiction in the courts of the place of performance (Article 7(1)). Parties may depart from these defaults by agreeing a jurisdiction clause; under Article 25 Brussels I bis, such clauses are valid if agreed in writing or in a form consistent with established practices between the parties.
The Clause Most Verbal Agreements Don’t Have: Force Majeure
Force majeure clauses are one type of clause that one would most likely want to include in their contract but are not very likely discussed in a verbal agreement. Force majeure is a legal doctrine that excuses a party from contractual performance when an extraordinary event beyond their control renders performance impossible. The importance of this provision became strikingly apparent in early 2026, when armed conflict in the Gulf region caused the cancellation of the CSI5* in Doha and the CSI2* in Al Ain, leaving horses on-site and organisers, riders, and sponsors facing sudden and complete disruption to their obligations. The doctrine had already reshaped the equestrian calendar in 2020, when the FEI World Cup Finals in Las Vegas were cancelled on force majeure grounds due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The scope of force majeure differs significantly across jurisdictions. In civil law systems, force majeure is typically embedded in statute; in common law systems, the parties must create their own protection through careful drafting. If not included specifically in the agreement, they are either left to the interpretation of a judge or, in the case of a common law jurisdiction, not taken into account all together. Either way, a well-drafted force majeure clause should define what qualifies as a force majeure event, establish clear notice requirements, and specify the consequences — whether suspension of obligations, termination, or cost allocation between the parties. The absence of such a clause can leave both sides exposed to claims for breach of contract arising from events entirely outside their control.
For a full analysis of force majeure in international sport — including the FEI regulatory framework, CAS jurisprudence, and the specific lessons from the 2026 Gulf conflict — we refer to our dedicated article: Armed Conflict and Force Majeure: Application within the FEI Regulatory Framework
What Separates a Strong Equine Contract From a Risky One
A well-drafted agreement does not merely record what was discussed: it anticipates what could go wrong and allocates the consequences in advance.
Clear obligations, certainty and enforceability. A written contract removes ambiguity and provides tangible proof of what was agreed. Courts find clearly documented terms easier to enforce than competing oral accounts.
Risk allocation. A written contract can allocate risks clearly (e.g., liability, indemnity), helping prevent disputes or making them easier to resolve.
More detailed information. Written contracts can include specifics such as payment terms, deadlines, penalties for breach, confidentiality clauses, warranties, etc. These details are difficult to fully capture and remember in a verbal agreement.
It specifies a dispute resolution mechanism. A jurisdiction clause, an applicable law clause, an arbitration clause, or a mediation obligation ensures that if things do go wrong, the parties know where and how to resolve the dispute rather than spending a lot of time and resources establishing basic procedural questions before the substantive issue can even be addressed.
Conclusion
While handshakes and verbal agreements are still very common in the equine world, they do not come without issues. Under Dutch law, verbal agreements are binding. The problem is not their legal validity; it is proving what was actually agreed when memories diverge, relationships sour, or a horse arrives with a condition no one put on paper. Add a cross-border element — a foreign buyer, a horse stabled in another jurisdiction, a sponsor based in a different jurisdiction from the event — and every risk compounds. The question becomes not just what was agreed, but before which court and under which law.
Extraordinary disruption compounds those risks further. A global pandemic, armed conflict in the Gulf, a competition cancelled overnight — force majeure is not a theoretical concern in international equestrian sport. It is a recurring reality, and one that a verbal agreement is entirely unprepared for.
A well-drafted contract does not change the culture of the equine world. It protects it — by giving both parties clarity from the outset, a shared framework for when things go wrong, and the certainty that a dispute, if it arises, can be resolved efficiently rather than expensively.
Legal Help in Contract Disputes
Schelstraete Equine Law has more than 40 years of experience in equine law and contract practice. We advise clients across the full spectrum of equine agreements and act in cross-border transactions involving multiple jurisdictions.
If you are entering into an agreement — domestic or international — or if you have disputes over existing agreements — verbal or in writing — we would be glad to assist.
For legal advice specific to your situation, please contact our office at info@schelstraete.com.
Disclaimer
This article serves as an introduction to the subject matter addressed and is provided solely for general informational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship between the reader and our firm. No rights may be derived from the contents of this article.
Although every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, no warranty is given as to the completeness or currency of the information presented. The law is subject to change, and its application will vary depending on the specific circumstances of each situation.
Readers should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this article without first seeking specific legal advice tailored to their situation. Our firm excludes all liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the information contained herein, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable Dutch law.
