A wwyd re new horse.....

L

L&M

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 March 2008
Messages
6,378
Location
up a hill
Visit site
Writing on behalf of a friend.....

She bought a young event horse 2 mnths ago from a dealer. She had it fully vetted and passed.

The mare has recently started napping and threatening to buck, and has been having issues with canter. My friend very sensibly thought she would have its back checked by a very reputable vet, just to discount any issues, before she got after her a bit more.

The vet has not only diagnosed the mare with kissing spine, but also has diagnosed her as a wobbler - my friend has seen the scans and x rays and said the damage is obvious. The vet has sadly advised her the mare has no future.

My friend has gone back to the dealer who is refusing a refund and advising her to persue the original vet that she passed the 5 stage vetting with.

My friend is in the process of seeking legal advice, but would you try to take the dealer to court for a refund, or sue the vet?

Tia!
 
I would do neither, unless the vetting included radiographs. Presuming that the horse displayed no symptoms on the day of the vetting, the vet was correct to pass it as fit ON THE DAY, which is all that a vetting can do.
 
I know what you are saying and something I have been wondering too.....I think the symptons have only presented now as she has put pressure on it with its schooling.

Blooming nightmare situation.
 
Unless the vet has xray vision then I don't see what case she has.

Presumably she's insured so should get an insurance payout upon destruction.
 
I had a similar situation about 10yrs ago.
Luckily I had her insured for LOU and they paid out even though only two months had passed, I think I only paid about two monthly premiums as well.
I briefly spoke to the dealer but didn't pursue it as she was fine at the time I bought her and definitely didn't persue the vet. This was with kissing spines. The wobblers bit is a bit different as I would have thought something would have shown at vetting.
Hopefully your friend has her insured.
 
I can't see there is a case. The horse was fine for the first few weeks, so it certainly doesn't sound as though any issues were apparent at point of purchase, and it would be unreasonable to expect any vet to pick it up earlier without xrays (which are at buyer's discretion and presumably weren't done).
 
Assuming that x-rays weren't done, I don't think your friend has a leg to stand on. It sounds like the symptoms are mild and have increased with more work; probably the dealer was unaware of anything being wrong and if it passed a full vetting I can't see anything to be gained from suing.

Hopefully the poor horse is insured and she'll get the payout for LoU or destruction?

Horses break. It's a fact of life.
 
Maybe I am wrong but I would have thought at a vetting the vet would have had the horse turned in tight circles, moving the forefeet across each other and watching the hinds cross as well. It's not just about the animal going in a straight line after all.
 
It’s one of those really awkward situations.
Ideally the horse would be insured for LOU, that way purchaser is covered without the rigmarole of suing Vet/dealer. But I’m assuming horse isn’t adequately insured.

So really you need proper legal advice.
I suspect, if the vet saw no symptoms and the horse was fit for purpose on the day, you will have little comeback there.
The dealer is probably the one you would sue. I believe the law would probably side with the purchaser if there is indesputable evidence the horse was not fit for purchase. I do feel sorry for genuine dealers in these instances though. Not so sorry for the dodgy ones.

It might be worthwhile testing the bloods from the vetting. If anything was being covered up in the sale this will seal the decision about whether to go after the dealer or not.
 
I've been in a similar situation, albeit with a 5yo dressage horse with tendon issues rather than KS. She passed a 5 stage vetting and a month later did her DDFT. My vet was convinced this was part of a much bigger pre-existing condition as there were signs of mineralisation in both forelegs that a newly backed 5yo just shouldn't have.

There was no one to blame, it was just sheer bad luck. I lost a tidy sum when she was PTS some 9 months later after I'd tried everything to get her field sound as we didn't meet BEVA guidelines. And learnt a valuable lesson on always having LOU on a new horse.

If your friend really wants to pursue a claim I'd looking at having the bloods tested to see if the horse was medicated when viewed/vetted but if that comes back negative I can't see how either vet or seller is to blame.
 
Horses meet the point where they go wrong every day of the year sometimes that day is just after purchase and that’s just bad luck .
I would however get the bloods tested just in case and include screening some of the newer anti inflammatory drugs such as rimadyl .
 
Just wanted to add I had a very positive experiance with KS surgery the horse came back better than ever but sadly had to be PTS for Tumors in his bowel .
Such is life with horses
 
I would have the bloods tested but if they come back clear I doubt there's any money to be had, it's a very unfortunate situation
 
I had a similar situation 1 yr ago with horse purchased at dealer in ireland. Horse passed vetting (and I rode him over there 3 days with no issues) but after coming to netherlands was unridable. X rays revealed KS.

He would not refund so I took a lawyer and eventually filled for the costs (did manage to transport him back to the seller before that) He paid the purchase value and my lawyers costs 1 day before the courtcase
 
If a Vet passed it fit for purposes on the day of vetting with no issues how was the dealer supposed to know something was to go wrong with the horse.
You have already stated that it was sound and she’s had it for couple of months so I don’t think morally or legally you have a case. People seem to forget horses are animals they are not machines who come with spare parts or a lifetime warranty. That is the risk you take buying a horse is that it may become injured or no longer fit for purpose. Yes it is unfortunate so soon after purchase but it isn’t anyone’s fault.
I very much dislike how everyone is out to sue or blame someone for lameness or illness these things happen. If she wanted some loss of use money back in this senario she should have it insured instead of trying to sue everyone because of her lack of insurance.
 
Much as I hate the suing culture, dealers should be more able to withstand the loss of a horse than a private individual with only one or two. And I believe the law now makes it a requirement that the horse is fit for its stated future purpose when sold.

Kissing spines haven't happened in a couple of months. Neither has spine impingement causing wobblers if it can be seen on x ray. And if the conditions were there when sold, even though they didn't show on the day of vetting, the horse was not fit for its future purpose as an eventer.

So I do believe that your friend has a right to return the horse to the dealer for a refund.

This is, after all, why horses bought from dealers generally cost more than the same horse would bought from a private individual.

For those saying she should have been insured and claim on the insurance, the basis of her case against the dealer will be that these were pre existing conditions. It would be surprising if any insurer would pay out, and fraudulent to claim if she did.

I hope it gets resolved for her soon.
 
Last edited:
Thanks all - I will pass all of your thoughts on.

As several have said, as she bought from a dealer, and these conditons may well have been pre-exisiting (even if the dealer was unaware), makes it not fit for the intended purchase.

She is currently liasing with an equine solicitor who thinks she has a case, so will be very interesting to see the outcome. Just glad it is not me.......poor horse.
 
cbmcts said:
I think the consumer rights act covers this scenario especially the part about a fault that develops in the first 6 months is presumed to have been present at the time of purchase.

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act

Rightly or wrongly horses are covered by this law exactly as a car/washing machine/ tv would be.
Click to expand...

In that case whatever is the point of getting a horse vetted????
It isnt the dealers fault- the horse passed the vet. Put it down to bad luck and move on.....
 
It isnt the dealers fault- the horse passed the vet. Put it down to bad luck and move on.....
Click to expand...

But it should be a lot easier for the dealer to stand both the loss of the horse and the loss of the money than for a private individual. So if the law says it's the dealer's liability, why should she?

What's the point of paying more money for a horse from a dealer if you don't have this sort of protection?
 
Morally it may not be the dealers fault.
Legally it still can be if the horse is not fit for the purpose it was sold for.
 
Flip what a terrible situation for all involved. Be interesting to see what the bloods show. This terrifies me for when I’m horse hunting again. Buying a horse is a gamble for sure!
 
I dont think it should have any bearing on a case who is the better able to stand the loss. In other words who is the richer!!
Surely a seller would only have to refund the money if the horse is proven to be mis-sold? The horse was seen, tried and vetted and was sound for 2 months.
I cannot see this horse has been mis-sold as on the day of sale seller, buyer and vet all believed the horse to be sound. No one can see into the future...
 
stormox said:
I dont think it should have any bearing on a case who is the better able to stand the loss. In other words who is the richer!!
Surely a seller would only have to refund the money if the horse is proven to be mis-sold? The horse was seen, tried and vetted and was sound for 2 months.
I cannot see this horse has been mis-sold as on the day of sale seller, buyer and vet all believed the horse to be sound. No one can see into the future...
Click to expand...

I kind of agree with you and as a private seller that would be exactly the case.

But dealers (of anything!) are legally expected to be more knowledgeable than the average joe and if they don't spot a problem how would the buyer? And as a business they have to stand by their stock and replace/refund as required. Nobody would argue this is wrong if it was a car or white goods and as horses are property they come under the same rules - just a cost of being in business for any dealer.

Similar principle to credit card companies being jointly liable with retailers if there is an issue with an item over a £100.

In saying that, it's not always easy to exercise your rights...
 
cbmcts said:
Nobody would argue this is wrong if it was a car or white goods and as horses are property they come under the same rules - just a cost of being in business for any dealer.

In saying that, it's not always easy to exercise your rights...
Click to expand...
If you buy a used car off a dealer and the exhaust falls off 2 months later do you have the right to take the car back? I wouldnt have thought you do.
 
stormox said:
If you buy a used car off a dealer and the exhaust falls off 2 months later do you have the right to take the car back? I wouldnt have thought you do.
Click to expand...

In theory you would have a right to a repair if and it is a big if you could prove that the damage was pre existing not you hammering over speed bumps...

In my case I got a very expensive turbo replacement on a 4 year old 70k miles car which cost nearly half of the value of the car. Lots and lots of people told me that the law didn't cover second hand cars, that it was buyer beware and how could the dealer have known that the turbo would blow. None of that was true and I wouldn't have known to go after the garage if they had stood by their expensive warranty that should have covered 50% of the cost. While it certainly wasn't easy to get the money out of them I did get it plus interest plus the small claims cost.
 
I would think the first thing to do is to get the KS/wobbler diagnosis confirmed by an expert opinion. Presumably neither is likely to have developed in such a short time span unless there has been a traumatic incident to produce neurological symptoms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top