You mention a couple of times that this situation was beyond Tattersall's control and thus he should not be held responsible. While this may be true, isn't it also true that the situation was out of Head's control? While I agree that the term in the contract covers the fact that the horse can be returned, either way someone is losing out on $15,000 due to bad luck. Let's assume that Tattersall and Head have a long-standing business relationship - litigation resulting in one of them losing a bunch of money will definitely damage this relationship. If these two parties used mediation instead to try to come to a fair conclusion accounting for the fact that the horse's inability to race is nobodies fault, what do you think that fair conclusion would be?