fredflop
Well-Known Member
I would think for that to stand up in court the purchaser is going to have to prove the kissing spine is old... not due to some fault on her part - bad riding, badly fitting saddle, trauma to the area
A wwyd re new horse.....
- Thread starter L&M
- Start date
whiteflower
Well-Known Member
I think it depends on the degree of kissing spines. I would think it would be entirely possible to end up with contact between the spinal processes over a period of 2 months depending on the horses way of going when ridden. Op states it's shown when the schooling has increased. I would argue there is no case here as it could indeed have occurred due to the way the horse has been worked over the two month period. Without x-rays it can't be proved either way.
It's a horrid situation for op but there isn't always some one to blame, horses break and unless an independent vet can say it was pre existing more than 2 months ago, which I very much doubt, I think it's a case of accepting the situation and moving forwards in which ever way is in the best interest of you and the horse
ycbm
Overwhelmed
The law for the sale of goods is quite clear. It does not matter whether the seller knows there is something wrong with the product or is completely oblivious of the fact. The seller is liable.
It goes back in law to a snail in a bottle of drink decades back in history, and has been strengthened even more since then.
ycbm
Overwhelmed
It's easy to see on an x ray whether the bone remodeling from kissing spines has been going on for more than eight weeks. It's also easy to see if the horse was born with dorsal processes packed too tight, as one of mine was.
And it's very easy to see on x ray if a wobbler is caused in the classic way by being born with a vertebrae in the neck which is narrower through the channel where the spinal cord runs than it should be. That can't happen over time, the horse has to have been born like it, as one of mine was.
Last edited:
Rollin
Well-Known Member
I purchased a horse who was vetted and passed sound. I had him backed, I was delighted with him. When he started to kick out when asked to canter on the left rein, I had him looked at by a specialist orthopaedic vet, who diagnosed an inflamed tendon and recommended shock wave treatment for 600 euros!!! I did not buy this so had him checked by another vet, who recommended linament for his back and told me I was not riding him correctly on the bit. So I sent him to a Pro Dressage rider, who loved him but agreed he had something wrong with him. Lovely canter but won't canter on the left rein. She told me to take him to the Professor at Nantes University Vet School.
X-Rays revealed he had a badly healed fracture in his neck, and a chip on his front right foot. His kissing spines were caused by a compression injury. The injuries he believed occurred during the first year of his life. He is unrideable but as a quality Cleveland Bay stallion, he has produced some beautiful foals.
The point I am making is that, his injuries were missed by two equine vets. In his case the seller was not the breeder and I never thought he had been sold with anything other than good faith. I don't regret buying him.
I have another horse who had very mild k/s who was 'cured' just by a 3 month programme of ridden exercises. The results of a second set of x-rays showed a 'dramatic' improvement. One local vet recently told me they have large numbers of horses referred with back problems and k/s caused by backing them too young and asking them to do too much. My objection to local training methods is the insistence of French riders that ONE saddle fits all horses!!! My two Shagya full brother and sister need a totally different shape/fit of saddle even Pro riders don't get it.
X-Rays revealed he had a badly healed fracture in his neck, and a chip on his front right foot. His kissing spines were caused by a compression injury. The injuries he believed occurred during the first year of his life. He is unrideable but as a quality Cleveland Bay stallion, he has produced some beautiful foals.
The point I am making is that, his injuries were missed by two equine vets. In his case the seller was not the breeder and I never thought he had been sold with anything other than good faith. I don't regret buying him.
I have another horse who had very mild k/s who was 'cured' just by a 3 month programme of ridden exercises. The results of a second set of x-rays showed a 'dramatic' improvement. One local vet recently told me they have large numbers of horses referred with back problems and k/s caused by backing them too young and asking them to do too much. My objection to local training methods is the insistence of French riders that ONE saddle fits all horses!!! My two Shagya full brother and sister need a totally different shape/fit of saddle even Pro riders don't get it.
Goldenstar
Well-Known Member
Yes but .... the buyer will have to prove that the condition was present or very likely to have been present at purchase .
That will be down to expert opinion on the diagnostics OP does not say what degree of impingement is present ,if it’s minor with no obvious signs older bone growth then it might be diffcult for the buyer to prove the defect was present at purchase .
Vets know that KS damage can occur quickly the horse has had a change of Home new saddle different rider different work regime .
The dealer will have that vets report on his ride symptoms where not present at the pre purchase examination .
So it’s down to a desision was the deflect present at purchase or has the deflect occurred since purchase .
That’s a judgement I don’t think you can say how that will go on the day in court .
You can’t buy a car mis judge a turn drive it into a wall and then blame the garage .
So it would be all down to what the diagnostics showed in the KS horse I bought the bone was completely diseased so much so it was crumbling as the vets performed the procedure it was long standing damage .
OP’s friend needs expert advice if she’s going to go down that road to understand exactly the expense and stress she will be taking on .
My experiance of KS surgery was good the horse was transformed the rehab was hard work at one point five times of twenty minute in hand work a day done through winter but watching his body change made it worth the cold and wet .
It’s terrible bad luck for OP’s friend .
ycbm
Overwhelmed
Of course, GS. But as you say, some cases of kissing spines are bleeding obvious. Some are born with them. Some are obviously years in the making. I was responding to a poster who was suggesting it would be impossible to prove that the horse had them less than nine weeks before it was bought.
stormox
Well-Known Member
And meanwhile, while all these expert opinions are being got, solicitors sorted, case built up, waiting for the courts (in my case 9 months) the horse is costing money and taking time to keep and look after.
And there is no guarantee the buyer will win.
Sometimes its better to just move on....
And there is no guarantee the buyer will win.
Sometimes its better to just move on....
ycbm
Overwhelmed
Completely agree with you there!
A friend of mine went all the way to the High Court with a point to pointer which would not race.
He won.
Seller declared themself bankrupt and he never saw a penny of his legal fees or the purchase money.
And in his case, he could easily have sold the horse for the three thousand had paid for it, to a non racing home.
whiteflower
Well-Known Member
Exactly, which is why I said without x-rays it can't be proved either way and depends on the degree.......
At this point we don't know, it may still be mild and have been caused by the schooling for the last few months.
Last edited:
L&M
Well-Known Member
She does have x -rays - for both KS and the neck vertebrae damage. From a very expensive and reputable vet so would question whether a second opinion would prove any different. And just to reiterate the vet has given a poor prognosis to the extent she has been told not to even breed from the mare.
She is not 'blaming' the dealer or claiming she is 'dodgy'. Equally it is the dealer that has told my friend to speak to the vet that passed it.
But under consumer law the horse is 'not fit for purpose', and not only is she out of pocket financially, she also has the dilemma of what to do with the poor mare. She decided to go to a dealer so that she would have protection having been stung in the past via a private seller.
Yes we can all 'that's horses' but if you had just lost a large sum of money on a unrideable horse I think
anyone would find it a bitter pill to swallow.........
She is not 'blaming' the dealer or claiming she is 'dodgy'. Equally it is the dealer that has told my friend to speak to the vet that passed it.
But under consumer law the horse is 'not fit for purpose', and not only is she out of pocket financially, she also has the dilemma of what to do with the poor mare. She decided to go to a dealer so that she would have protection having been stung in the past via a private seller.
Yes we can all 'that's horses' but if you had just lost a large sum of money on a unrideable horse I think
anyone would find it a bitter pill to swallow.........
Last edited:
Theocat
Well-Known Member
Lots of us on this thread have lost large chunks of money on unrideable horses. It is indeed a bitter pill.
If your friend manages to pursue a case successfully, that's great, but it's not going to be straightforward when it's a living animal and the argument centres on when changes in its body started to occur.
Of course, if lots of people start winning these kinds of cases, it will be the end of dealing as we know it. Why would anyone sell a horse if they're liable for anything that goes physically wrong with it for the next six months? If you're a vet, why would you risk carrying out a vetting if the purchaser doesn't opt for every existing scan or diagnostic that is available to them, but can still hold you liable for something that is invisible without them?
If your friend manages to pursue a case successfully, that's great, but it's not going to be straightforward when it's a living animal and the argument centres on when changes in its body started to occur.
Of course, if lots of people start winning these kinds of cases, it will be the end of dealing as we know it. Why would anyone sell a horse if they're liable for anything that goes physically wrong with it for the next six months? If you're a vet, why would you risk carrying out a vetting if the purchaser doesn't opt for every existing scan or diagnostic that is available to them, but can still hold you liable for something that is invisible without them?
ester
Not slacking multitasking
Has she requested the bloods be tested?
whiteflower
Well-Known Member
So has this vet confirmed in his opinion the kissing spines and wobblers are pre existing conditions prior to the purchase 2 months ago ?
If so surely all that needs to happen is for him to put that in writing and then get advice from a solicitor ?
ycbm
Overwhelmed
She'd had it less than nine weeks when it was noticed that it wasn't right.
We already pay more for a horse from a dealer than from a private home. The liability for animals not fit for purpose is why.
If the axle broke on your new car, you'd expect the dealer to fix it even though he didn't know it had a didn't know about the fault when he sold it. What's different about a horse bought only two months earlier and found to have been born with a career limiting narrowing of the neck vertebrae and kissing spines that can't have developed in nine weeks?
stormox
Well-Known Member
I think its rather an unproven statement saying you pay more from a dealer than a private home. The selling and pricing of horses is not straightforward like cars. There is no Glass's Guide to horse prices.
I think there is a lot of difference between buying a horse and buying a washing machine or car - you dont get a washing machine vetted to start with.
The buyer did not realise there was anything wrong for 9 weeks. There will be a lot of expert opinions needed- at a cost- to try and prove the buyer didn't 'break' this horse.
Going to court will be a costly process with no certainity of the outcome.
ycbm
Overwhelmed
Well let's put it this way. A dealer buys a horse intending to sell it on at a profit. If the buyer could have found the horse before it went to the dealer, they could have bought the horse for what the dealer paid.
Therefore, by definition, on average, if you buy a horse from a bog standard dealer who is not improving the horse whilst is in their care, then you will pay more for it than if you could find the same horse for sale privately.
Last edited:
stormox
Well-Known Member
Theoretically. In that case. But most decent dealers put a good bit of work into their horses before resale, and that has to be paid for, as does their time, transport and trial facilities.
ycbm
Overwhelmed
Buyer already has this.
If the horse is a congenital wobbler there is no dispute, it was born with it. As it is, she has a high class vet prepared to state that the two problems could not have arisen in eight or nine weeks. And there are some levels of damage which are so obvious that the seller would not be able to find reputable vet who will say on oath they must have occurred in nine weeks since it was sold.
Civil cases are decided on balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The balance of probabilities in this case might be quite obvious.
It depends on the cost of the horse. A small claim is not expensive raise. Michen won a case last year against a dealer, who caved in just before the case was heard.
Besides, this case is nowhere near court yet, the threat may be enough.
whiteflower
Well-Known Member
Ycbm, maybe the heats getting to me and I've missed a post but I don't see where the op confirmed that the vet has said they will put in writing that the problems were definately there pre purchase (or even that that's what they believe) or that the wobblers is congenital (rathan than symptomatic due to some kind impact/injury)
It's a shame for the horse owner but people can only comment on the information given. I'm assuming for your posts you have further knowledge on the case and hence can comment in a more enlightened way
It's a shame for the horse owner but people can only comment on the information given. I'm assuming for your posts you have further knowledge on the case and hence can comment in a more enlightened way
cbmcts
Well-Known Member
It's up to the dealer - at their expense - to prove that the KS and wobblers have been caused in the time since purchase as it is under 6 months since the sale. Otherwise the assumption is that they were there prior to purchase and since a repair (in the legal sense) is unlikely to be acceptable to the purchaser, a refund is their right. Also, once a return has been requested and a small claim court case started the costs of keeping the horse can be added to the claim plus court costs and interest.
However, as a previous poster said winning the court case is only the first step in actually in seeing the money if a business is unreliable enough to fight to court. Most reputable businesses know their obligations under the law and comply even if unwillingly. For horse dealer, that's horses isn't it? The poor horse could easily have shown these problems before sale if they had decided to produce it for a season to try for a higher price...and they'd be in exactly the same position as they are now.
However, as a previous poster said winning the court case is only the first step in actually in seeing the money if a business is unreliable enough to fight to court. Most reputable businesses know their obligations under the law and comply even if unwillingly. For horse dealer, that's horses isn't it? The poor horse could easily have shown these problems before sale if they had decided to produce it for a season to try for a higher price...and they'd be in exactly the same position as they are now.
ycbm
Overwhelmed
Neither have been confirmed. I'm replying from the basis that people are saying there is no case, the case would be fought, or that it is tough luck that the horse has broken after only nine weeks, and 'poor dealer' comments. I think I prefaced everything with 'if', apologies if I missed one.
Puzzled
Well-Known Member
If the bloods come back clear then I’d put it down to bad luck. There won’t be many people left selling horses if 6 months down the line, every purchaser sends back a horse they’re not happy with for whatever reason. If a vet couldn’t spot the issue why would the seller?
ycbm
Overwhelmed
Great post.
WeeLassie
Well-Known Member
Exactly. And theres a few on here who think just because one vet says its got wobblers and KS its a cut and dried case and the buyer will get the money back. Theyl be lucky!! Theres already been one vet who's passed the horse as fit to do the job, x-rays and other diagnostics are only as good (or as bad) as the person interpreting them, and they will trawl every social media post from the buyer and their friends to see if they were originally happy with the purchase.
I think it is rather bad form if anyone who buys a horse that has a problem immediately blames the seller and thinks they are entitled to their money back. Who would want to be a horse dealer under these circumstances?
cbmcts
Well-Known Member
I can understand why people are saying that it is unfair to the dealer, that they did nothing wrong and they do have a point. To most of us, our horses are pets and we don't return them to the shop the same way we would a broken tv. By the sounds of things, this isn't buyers remorse or someone who has over horsed themselves which wouldn't be a valid reason for a return under the consumer act. Assuming that facts given in the OP are broadly accurate, this mare who was bought to event will not be fit for the purpose sold and legally the loss is the dealers not the purchasers. This the safety net that purchasers have by buying from a dealer which they are legally entitled to enforce. For a dealer it is a cost of doing business just like rent, rates and taxes - it's not optional.
It's a shame that the vetting didn't spot any of this, it could have saved a lot of heartache I'm sure but as the actual sales contract is with the dealer, the responsibility to provide 'goods' fit for purpose is theirs.
I use the word legally a lot because there is a huge difference between that and what is 'fair' or morally right. Animals, once they arrive on my doorstep are for life - good and bad. I don't know if I would be able to return a horse to what maybe an uncertain future once they'd been in my care for more than a week or so especially if they were unwell. In saying that, I wouldn't judge anyone that did because lets not kid ourselves, it's not just paying for the KS op (insurance might cover it since the vetting was clear?) there is also the emotional cost and time involved in recovery and rehab with no guarantee that the horse will come sound enough to pursue an eventing career.
The purpose of this law is to hold traders in any goods accountable and if it means that we pay more when we buy from a business rather than a private individual, well that's fair enough. They get to charge a premium to cover any returns and we get the security of knowing that we have a comeback if things go wrong whether or not the dealer sold in good faith. It's not the same as fairness or the purchaser just changing their mind, there is a strict criteria involving fit for purpose and reasonability but if those are met...
It's a shame that the vetting didn't spot any of this, it could have saved a lot of heartache I'm sure but as the actual sales contract is with the dealer, the responsibility to provide 'goods' fit for purpose is theirs.
I use the word legally a lot because there is a huge difference between that and what is 'fair' or morally right. Animals, once they arrive on my doorstep are for life - good and bad. I don't know if I would be able to return a horse to what maybe an uncertain future once they'd been in my care for more than a week or so especially if they were unwell. In saying that, I wouldn't judge anyone that did because lets not kid ourselves, it's not just paying for the KS op (insurance might cover it since the vetting was clear?) there is also the emotional cost and time involved in recovery and rehab with no guarantee that the horse will come sound enough to pursue an eventing career.
The purpose of this law is to hold traders in any goods accountable and if it means that we pay more when we buy from a business rather than a private individual, well that's fair enough. They get to charge a premium to cover any returns and we get the security of knowing that we have a comeback if things go wrong whether or not the dealer sold in good faith. It's not the same as fairness or the purchaser just changing their mind, there is a strict criteria involving fit for purpose and reasonability but if those are met...
honetpot
Well-Known Member
I agree with all of the above but being a horse dealer is not like selling cars. Dealers buy cars from sales or dealerships and may spend a few hundred pounds on them and sell them at a profit. While they are sat on the lot they need not be taxed or insured, and if it a lemon and comes back when sold they may lose money, but they can either fix it or scrap it, it has a 'book' value and a scrap value which every dealer gambles on.
There is very little value in dead horses, most may have been signed out of the food chain, so you have to pay to have it disposed of, which the going rate seems to be £200. So you buy a nice youngster, which should be at least £2000, you train it for sale and say sell it for £4500, you haven't made £2500 because of your costs. If the horse comes back because it develops something that is then shown to be a pre-existing condition but was not obvious with a 5 stage vetting, that they were unaware of, the loses could be huge.
That means they either have to charge an amount of money that covers any potential losses of any sales, or trade as limited company, and every time they take a bit hit the companies liability is used to protect the dealers personal finances, and then they just start trading under another company.
Its like wanting to buy a car with all the warranties but your cheapest car is about £9,000, how many people want to spend that for a low level competition horse.
There is very little value in dead horses, most may have been signed out of the food chain, so you have to pay to have it disposed of, which the going rate seems to be £200. So you buy a nice youngster, which should be at least £2000, you train it for sale and say sell it for £4500, you haven't made £2500 because of your costs. If the horse comes back because it develops something that is then shown to be a pre-existing condition but was not obvious with a 5 stage vetting, that they were unaware of, the loses could be huge.
That means they either have to charge an amount of money that covers any potential losses of any sales, or trade as limited company, and every time they take a bit hit the companies liability is used to protect the dealers personal finances, and then they just start trading under another company.
Its like wanting to buy a car with all the warranties but your cheapest car is about £9,000, how many people want to spend that for a low level competition horse.
ycbm
Overwhelmed
There are dealers who would have taken this horse back without a quibble if it shows obvious signs of having had the two problems since before it was sold. If they can run their businesses in accordance with the law like that, what are the others doing wrong that they can't?
I don't understand the point of view that says it's more fair for someone who has just enough money to buy one horse to lose all that money, than it is for a business to take that loss.
It sounds like people would like a law change for the selling of horses. I would myself.
My start point would be that you have three months to find anything that was physically wrong at the time of sale, and after that, no matter what, it's no come-back. For behavioural issues, providing no lies were told and no undeclared drugs given, I would not allow a return at any time. The buyer can sell to someone who suits the horse better, even if they have to take a loss.
What would you think of those changes? If you don't like them, what would you prefer?
I don't understand the point of view that says it's more fair for someone who has just enough money to buy one horse to lose all that money, than it is for a business to take that loss.
It sounds like people would like a law change for the selling of horses. I would myself.
My start point would be that you have three months to find anything that was physically wrong at the time of sale, and after that, no matter what, it's no come-back. For behavioural issues, providing no lies were told and no undeclared drugs given, I would not allow a return at any time. The buyer can sell to someone who suits the horse better, even if they have to take a loss.
What would you think of those changes? If you don't like them, what would you prefer?
be positive
Well-Known Member
There is nothing to stop the higher end dealers xraying before purchase just as anyone else can, if they stand to make a decent profit it could make sense to get xrays before they invest in any horse, back, hocks and feet the obvious areas, a decent vet would probably offer a deal to a regular client, much the same as a garage doing an MOT/ service before selling a car, it is not quite as simple but it would cover them as well as a purchaser who could see the xrays as part of the pre purchase vetting, a clear set of xrays may add value and for the better dealers it could be a really good selling point.
The bottom end will not be interested but it could help weed out the dodgy ones faster if the law was tightened up and made clearer.
The bottom end will not be interested but it could help weed out the dodgy ones faster if the law was tightened up and made clearer.
Pearlsasinger
Up in the clouds
It amazes me that some posters (and presumably potential horse buyers) don't understand that The Sale of Goods Act covers horse sales, which by law are treated just like an inanimate object, as far as being 'fit for purpose' is concerned.