A stark lesson for all sellers. Court case

P

Patches

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 February 2005
Messages
10,028
Visit site
My friend's court case had judgement passed on it today. She had sold her pony a few months ago to what she thought was a knowledgeable and experienced family. They claim the pony changed temperament as soon as they bought her (don't they all play up/need time to settle?) and that she wasn't what they thought they'd bought. Also turns out her experienced children were complete beginners.

She lost as the judge decided she mis-represented the pony. The reason? In her advert she stated the pony hacks alone and since she's been in the ownership of the new owners, they say they cannot hack her alone.

They provided no evidence of attempting to hack her and her being naughty. They never said she napped, bucked or reared. All they said is "she doesn't hack alone". No elaboration whatsoever. The judge said he wasn't interested in what she did with my friend previously and up until the point of the contract. He's only interested that since the contract was made the pony doesn't hack. How wrong does that sound that it doesn't matter what the pony was like before they were sold?

Judge said when it comes down to conflicting evidence from both parties they ALWAYS decide in favour of the claimant. How terrible is that?

How can anyone ever sell a pony if that's how the law stands?
 
bl00dy hell - law is a seaside donkey

means I presume you'd have to say something like

"hacks alone with current owner in lanes around xxx postcode"
"good to box in present owners lorry"
"good with farrier Mr. X"

"easy to clip using x clippers on a sunny day in October at xxx stables when the wind is in a SW direction"

Oh the number of words you're going to need to have an advert after that ruling will make the magazines a lot of money
 
That is absolutely ridicuous!! Like Patches says, how can anyone ever sell a horse again?!?!
shocked.gif

What will the world come to if idiots like this insist on taking honest people to court because their own stupidity?!?!
mad.gif

I really feel for your friend. I do hope they appeal against it, but if the judge is right and they always take the side of the claimant then it doesn't sound like she has much chance of winning.
frown.gif

You'd have thought the court would have wanted to see that the horse won't hack out alone, at least by sending your friend round to do, or an unbiased 3rd party doing it.
Sorry for being so long but I am sooo shocked and deeply saddened by this. It's appalling.
mad.gif
mad.gif
 
The case was heard in Stoke on Trent and if reports are made public, I expect there is a report on the case.

My friend has to take the pony back as the judge has ordered the contract be rescinded. She has to pay the claimants costs and livery charges (even though the woman has land at home) all without the claimant having to provide receipts. She also has to pay for the woman's transporting of the pony, even though transportation of the pony was done by a friend who's not licensed or insured for transportation. The cost was £60. No way did she pay her friend that much.
 
That is terrible, I thought the idea of going to court was a verdict being made on evidence being presented. It sounds like those people knew what the law was, bought themselves an unsuitable pony and knew how to screw everyone over.
A sad day in the horsey world.
 
What a joke!!

Surely there must be more to this story? The justice system is a total farce in this country !!

Why has this gone to court - I wouldnt mind if the pony had thrown one of the kids off and really hurt someone - then yes - maybe take it to court but just because its doesnt hack on its own? Odd - very odd.

I would hate to be in the horse selling business - its pathetic - I know there are alot of bad sellers out there but there are some shocking buyers about aswell - so many people are buying and lying about their abilities - its pathetic!!

I think that the fact the claimant went to court over this shows they are horse novices - anyone who knew owt about horses knows they take time to settle - and ....... did they not try the horse and hack it out on its own before they bought it? Morons

I am sorry for your friend - truly sorry!!
 
But horses always always change when they go to new homes! Sometimes it's the new owners but usually it's a poor upset horse that hasn't settled in, is confused about new riders, new circumstances etc. Still, you know all this! I suppose it might be an idea for a third party, like a YO, to write a short bit about the horse they have known and what it was like, whether children rode it etc. - but would anyone stick their neck out these days. Very sorry for seller in this case.
 
That is exactly why when I let anyone near Beau I make sure that they understand his behavior cannot be guaranteed and that no novices can ride him! If I ever sell him they will have to sign a contract to that effect as he can be VERY different in different situations - just feeding him cereals etc can turn him into an speed machine with bad brakes, but on a hot day he is a total plod and looks like a total saint - very very deceiving!
 
May I ask if your friend was represented by a solicitor and barrister?

Where any expert witnesses called to give evidence?
 
What a Joke, !!!!!!!!!!! Our justice system is a complete and utter Joke sometimes think your better off never being honest and people who arnt seem to get treated better than those who are... I hope there is an appeal
 
This is awful
confused.gif

Will your friend appeal??

I was witness in a horse-related case before and the judge ruled against us! It was clear that the judge knew nothing about horses as our experts made it clear that the claimant was contradicting himself. Never the less he won 5 figure compensation.

The case was appealed and the second time our judge had a knowlege of horses, I didnt even have to take the stand, as soon as the claimant started talking the judge picked up on all the inconsistencies in his story!

It just goes to show the difference that a little horse knowledge can make!
 
I am surprised at the result if she was being treated as a private seller. However, if she had sold three horses over the space of 12 months, then she would be treated as a dealer, and that puts a whole new angle on the case.

Did she have proper legal representation?
 
Sounds like a case that should be brought to the attention of the editorial team of H&H...I remember reading previous comments about similar situations in the magazine...it needs to be brought to the attention of the general public.
 
ths sounds like something that could be overturned at appeal if your friend was inclined to go there, although of course there are costs involved.

one decision like this in one county court case does not precedent make, so don't give up just because this was the decision in this case. Decisions that impact on similar cases are made at a much higher level.
 
There is little doubt that this judgement will be overturned on appeal should your friend be wishing to take it that far. This must be overturned as one of the main reasons I have never allowed anyone to have a pony of mine on trial is that is a very short period of time they can totally change the manners/attitude etc of the horse & ruin him. The less knowledge the potential buyer has the more likely this is to happen.
mad.gif
 
I'm gobsmacked, I don't know what to say. Maybe we should insist that Judges on horse related cases be horse knowledgeable, but then I guess they will claim the judge was prejudiced. I hope your friend appeals and wins, as she should
 
[ QUOTE ]
But horses always always change when they go to new homes! Sometimes it's the new owners but usually it's a poor upset horse that hasn't settled in, is confused about new riders, new circumstances etc. Still, you know all this! I suppose it might be an idea for a third party, like a YO, to write a short bit about the horse they have known and what it was like, whether children rode it etc. - but would anyone stick their neck out these days. Very sorry for seller in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did. Horse was kept here for quite some time. I hacked her (and I'm not a good rider) and Hannah rode her in the field without any incident or problem. Judge discounted my witness statement as he felt the only impartial witness was the woman who went with the claimant. She was her friend, how he can conclude that she was impartial I'll never know.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Why was your friend selling the pony? If I sold a horse and it did not suit I would have it back if I knew it was a good horse, but then I rarely sell horses

[/ QUOTE ]

She wasn't selling her because she was a nutter, if that's what you're thinking.

It was infact her daughter's pony and her daughter began to find boys more interesting than horses so said pony wasn't being ridden much. My friend had her own horse to ride and was finding she was keeping both horses semi-fit by splitting her time riding, instead of devoting her time to one. Obviously, there's no point paying livery etc for a horse that isn't really wanted or needed any more.

My friend would've had the pony back I think. Sadly her dad died the morning the claimant called her up to verbally abuse her and she just said she couldn't deal with it that day because her dad had just died. A couple of days later, the court papers arrived.

She did seek legal representation but she couldn't take a solicitor into the small claims court as it's not allowed. The judge discounted the solicitors letter and the caveat emptor rule as he said that's superseded when misrepresentation has occurred. Again, the only thing he said he felt was in-accurate was the "hacks alone" in the sales advert. I know it sounds surreal to think she lost the case on something like that without the claimant having to provide evidence of a horse napping etc when attempting to be hacked alone, but I assure you that is exactly what happened.

I am so shocked it's untrue.
 
Nope not a dealer. Friend hadn't sold a horse for over 12 months when she swapped her lively TB for a more sedate lightweight cob.


In his closing statement at the judgement the judge spent about 15 minutes actively criticising the claimant! I really thought my friend had won until he suddenly said he found for the claimant! I couldn't believe he went as far as saying in a case of "conflicting evidence" they always side with the claimant? Where's the justice in that? How can you favour someone even in the absence of any proof to reason that decision?
 
It's made my friend really ill to be honest. She's had a bad year with losing her dad suddenly and I think she just wants to put it behind her now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top