Advice wanted please. New owners trying to take to court.

Tiddlypom said:
Is that a technical term, or a term of endearment??

Selling or buying unseen is not something that I would ever do, but hey ho.

If the sellers are offering to have the horse back, but cannot refund the full price just yet, then the purchasers should accept that and return the horse at their own expense. Arrangements can be made to refund the difference over an agreed period of time.
Click to expand...

God knows what I meant but stupid iPad likes to write its own stories, I think it was 'liased with the client' :D

As to the value, if the horse was OK when it left the previous owners property then why should the old owner pay all the money the buyer previously paid. The new owner has screwed up the horse and reduced its value.

If they want to return the horse then they should expect to forfeit some of the money.
 
Last edited:
I can't believe all the people casually saying buy it back either, are you all a lot wealthier than me?
It's not just finding the money to buy back, it's also the cost of keeping including livery unless your lucky enough to have your own land, re schooling , advertising and reselling once re schooled , the time involved etc, .and let's face it time is money .
At least £100 a week !

Life is not that simple
 
I'm sorry to correct you folks, but there IS law that covers private sale, it's not just buyer beware. The horse must be as described, and if this horse has been described as quiet to ride and handle and good with mares, and it's not, then the seller does have an obligation to take the horse back or compensate for e lower value. Whether the new owner will actually sue is another point totally, but if they do, and they win, the seller will have to pay both sides costs.

And although this may seem very unfair, it does not matter that the horse was not like it in his previous home, it only matters that he's like it now and the new owner can prove that it is not as was described.
 
Last edited:
If I were the owner I'd write them a letter, including all the previous emails / proof of what he was like prior. Turn it round and try and be helpful - I'd ask them what their routine is with the horse etc. (basically imply its what they are doing thats messing the horse up!). They might calm down if the owner shows to be trying to help - and it looks good in court if it gets to that.

Personally, I would make them an offer on the horse telling them you cannot pay what they paid for it, since it now needs to be reschooled. I couldn't leave one of my horses in an unhappy place. I wouldn't think though that it would get far in court, since the new owner didnt even bother to go and try the horse - thats her fault, not the owners. And its been 3 months, a lot can change in 3 weeks to ruin a horse, let alone 3 months!
 
I wonder how impressed people would be if they bought a car and it wouldn't drive properly on the motorway and the garage said they wouldn't take it back because they hadn't test driven it on the motorway? The law will see this the same way. It may sound illogical to horse owners, but whether the buyer bought it unseen or not makes no difference. It has to be as described.


My friend bought a point to pointer. It would not race once another horse came alongside, it just stopped. He won his case even though the seller had offered him the opportunity to gallop it and he turned it down, because it was not 'fit to race' as described.
 
Last edited:
cptrayes said:
I'm sorry to correct you folks, but there IS law that covers private sale, it's not just buyer beware. The horse must be as described, and if this horse has been described as quiet to ride and handle and good with mares, and it's not, then the seller does have an obligation to take the horse back or compensate for e lower value. Whether the new owner will actually sue is another point totally, but if they do, and they win, the seller will have to pay both sides costs.

And although this may seem very unfair, it does not matter that the horse was not like it in his previous home, it only matters that he's like it now and the new owner can prove that it is not as was described.
Click to expand...

This...and as I discovered last year after a fiend took legal advice, a new owner has 6 years in which to lodge such a complaint/claim!
 
This thread has convinced me NEVER to sell a horse EVER - a horse isn't a car and the way it's handled/ fed/ turned out etc can have massive impacts on how it behaves - if courts won't listern to that we all have no hope.
Can you imagine - anyone who buys a horse has 6 YEARS to ruin it then hand it back and demand their money back.

Total insanity - all mine are leaving in the back of the knackermans box !
 
cptrayes said:
I wonder how impressed people would be if they bought a car and it wouldn't drive properly on the motorway and the garage said they wouldn't take it back because they hadn't test driven it on the motorway? The law will see this the same way. It may sound illogical to horse owners, but whether the buyer bought it unseen or not makes no difference. It has to be as described.


My friend bought a point to pointer. It would not race once another horse came alongside, it just stopped. He won his case even though the seller had offered him the opportunity to gallop it and he turned it down, because it was not 'fit to race' as described.
Click to expand...

Actually this is incorrect.

Whether the buyer took the opportunity to inspect the item before purchase does make a difference. Failure to inspect the item before purchase where the seller made the item available for inspection would evidentially disfavour the buyer in any subsequent action.
 
Polos Mum said:
This thread has convinced me NEVER to sell a horse EVER - a horse isn't a car and the way it's handled/ fed/ turned out etc can have massive impacts on how it behaves - if courts won't listern to that we all have no hope.
Can you imagine - anyone who buys a horse has 6 YEARS to ruin it then hand it back and demand their money back.

Total insanity - all mine are leaving in the back of the knackermans box !
Click to expand...

With my friend, it was a case that after two years, the pony became too strong to hold and he started to bolt. The owner wasn't looking to sue or anything like that, she just wanted the dealer to take the pony back and find her a more suitable one which was heart breaking for her as they were besotted with the pony. The dealer was hesitant so the owner sought advice.

The owner was told that as she still had the "for sale" advert from which she bought the pony, in which it stated clearly that he was snaffle mouthed, but also a video in a public domain from the same time period, before she made the purchase showing the pony being ridden in a Pelham, that she had a very good case.

She was told that the issue had to have been present at the time of sale and withheld from the owner, whether knowingly or not. Any issues arising after the sale would make it much more difficult due to the influence of human interaction with a horses behaviour. Basically....that a new owner could not mess up a horse and then expect it to be taken back.

Example that was given:

1/ Horse had been known to buck occasionally, but sold as vice free. If the new owner has evidence of the horse bucking before the sale date and the advert or other evidence of the horse being sold as vice free...the seller would have to remedy the issue.

2/ Horse is as described in the advert. New owner takes horse home, increases feed, reduces exercise and turnout and horse becomes difficult to handle and ride. No evidence can be found that the horse showed any such behaviours before the time of sale. Seller not responsible, owner liable for any legal costs of the seller.

This was told to my friend by the BHS helpline specialist late 2012.
 
Polos Mum said:
This thread has convinced me NEVER to sell a horse EVER - a horse isn't a car and the way it's handled/ fed/ turned out etc can have massive impacts on how it behaves - if courts won't listern to that we all have no hope.
Can you imagine - anyone who buys a horse has 6 YEARS to ruin it then hand it back and demand their money back.

Total insanity - all mine are leaving in the back of the knackermans box !
Click to expand...

It is not as bad as you think!

If the buyer had taken any significant amount of time to bring the claim they would likely have evidential difficulty proving that there was a breach of contract.
 
As always lots of different view points but I wonder what's to stop me taking out an interest free credit card - going and buying an expensive horse described as vice free and no bucking/ rearing, ragging it round all summer (at the end of which it will be doing something naughty undoubtedly) then handing it back and getting my money back.
Lots of adds say doesn't buck/ rear - treated poorly enough most horses will buck or rear eventually - so there is my evidence - you said he didn't and now he does - so money back thanks !
 
Darremi said:
Actually this is incorrect.

Whether the buyer took the opportunity to inspect the item before purchase does make a difference. Failure to inspect the item before purchase where the seller made the item available for inspection would evidentially disfavour the buyer in any subsequent action.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info, Darremi. This case seemed that way though? I have knowledge of only one case, but this case was fought over exactly that point and that point only. That she had given him the opportunity to gallop the horse in company and he had refused it.

Case is Morley v. I can't remember from late 1980s if you want to check it out. He won on appeal, she went bankrupt. He lost a mint even though he won the case.
 
If the seller doesn't have time/ money to take the horse back then why should she?
She sold the horse for a reason, in good faith by the sounds of things, so she has no reason to take the horse back. If the new owner doesnt get on with the horse then they will simply have to sell it on and accept that they might make a loss.
As for buying a horse unseen, I sold my horse to a lovely lady in jersey unseen, from pictures and videos. She kept her for five or so years. And no she wasn't ' bottom end of the market' she was almost £9k.
Just because you meet some one in person it doesn't mean they will treat the horse how you expect once they have them home.
We have bought more than one horse that has seemed perfect on trial but when we have got them home they have issues, we have always worked through them, been patient and they have always come right, we never considered sending them back. When you buy a horse, you buy a risk, you win some and you lose some.
 
Cptrayes

If you could remember the full name of the case I should like to read it!

I suspect that it went the way of the buyer because of representations of the buyer to the seller.

There are provisions in SOGA 1979 to the effect that there is an implied duty incumbent upon the seller where the buyer communicates to the seller that the items for sale will be used for a specific purpose. Where that purpose is made known to the seller. For example if you tell the seller you are looking for a racehorse, the seller is then under a duty to provide goods that can serve that purpose.

Alternatively it may have had something to do with representations made by the seller as to the horse's attributes as a racehorse.

But SOGA does not apply to private sales.

If you can remember the case I can take a look and see what happened :-).
 
Polos Mum said:
As always lots of different view points but I wonder what's to stop me taking out an interest free credit card - going and buying an expensive horse described as vice free and no bucking/ rearing, ragging it round all summer (at the end of which it will be doing something naughty undoubtedly) then handing it back and getting my money back.
Lots of adds say doesn't buck/ rear - treated poorly enough most horses will buck or rear eventually - so there is my evidence - you said he didn't and now he does - so money back thanks !
Click to expand...

Read my post on the previous page regarding advice given to my friend by BHS helpline. You cant' just do that in the scenario you have described.
 
Darremi said:
Cptrayes

If you could remember the full name of the case I should like to read it!

I suspect that it went the way of the buyer because of representations of the buyer to the seller.

There are provisions in SOGA 1979 to the effect that there is an implied duty incumbent upon the seller where the buyer communicates to the seller that the items for sale will be used for a specific purpose. Where that purpose is made known to the seller. For example if you tell the seller you are looking for a racehorse, the seller is then under a duty to provide goods that can serve that purpose.

Alternatively it may have had something to do with representations made by the seller as to the horse's attributes as a racehorse.

But SOGA does not apply to private sales.

If you can remember the case I can take a look and see what happened :-).
Click to expand...




Ah, damn it Darremi, I'm furious with myself now. The first part of the case was to establish that she had sold over three horses that year and was therefore a dealer and SOGA applied. I'd forgotten that in the mists of time ....


In your opinion, would failure to try the horse when offered matter any more or less than in a private sale? I have both bought and sold unseen, so I'd be interested to know.

I only know the Morley name, but it would have gone initially through a Bristol court in about 1990 . I know it was appealed by him after he lost at first and I believe that went to the high court. He was an idiot, it was only a three grand horse, but he got stuck on the principle of the thing.
 
Last edited:
_GG_ said:
With my friend, it was a case that after two years, the pony became too strong to hold and he started to bolt. The owner wasn't looking to sue or anything like that, she just wanted the dealer to take the pony back and find her a more suitable one which was heart breaking for her as they were besotted with the pony. The dealer was hesitant so the owner sought advice.

The owner was told that as she still had the "for sale" advert from which she bought the pony, in which it stated clearly that he was snaffle mouthed, but also a video in a public domain from the same time period, before she made the purchase showing the pony being ridden in a Pelham, that she had a very good case.

She was told that the issue had to have been present at the time of sale and withheld from the owner, whether knowingly or not. Any issues arising after the sale would make it much more difficult due to the influence of human interaction with a horses behaviour. Basically....that a new owner could not mess up a horse and then expect it to be taken back.

Example that was given:

1/ Horse had been known to buck occasionally, but sold as vice free. If the new owner has evidence of the horse bucking before the sale date and the advert or other evidence of the horse being sold as vice free...the seller would have to remedy the issue.

2/ Horse is as described in the advert. New owner takes horse home, increases feed, reduces exercise and turnout and horse becomes difficult to handle and ride. No evidence can be found that the horse showed any such behaviours before the time of sale. Seller not responsible, owner liable for any legal costs of the seller.

This was told to my friend by the BHS helpline specialist late 2012.
Click to expand...

This sounds like eminently sensible advice :-).
 
cptrayes said:
I'm sorry to correct you folks, but there IS law that covers private sale, it's not just buyer beware. The horse must be as described, and if this horse has been described as quiet to ride and handle and good with mares, and it's not, then the seller does have an obligation to take the horse back or compensate for e lower value. Whether the new owner will actually sue is another point totally, but if they do, and they win, the seller will have to pay both sides costs.

And although this may seem very unfair, it does not matter that the horse was not like it in his previous home, it only matters that he's like it now and the new owner can prove that it is not as was described.
Click to expand...

You would be correct if the sale was by a dealer, if its a private sale then you would only be liable if you knowingly made a false statement.
 
Cptrayes

Ahh SOGA applied, that explains it then!

I think it would depend upon the wording of the advert. If the seller makes representations about the horse's characteristics such as "snaffle mouthed" or "no vices", it is bought unseen and then turns out shortly after to be a complete monster then the buyer may still succeed.

However, where there is no evidence that the horse had behavioural problems before the sale and the seller has represented the horse as having good characteristics and it later does not. A failure to inspect the horse may reflect adversely against the buyer evidentially. The same could be said where the horse is "sold as seen" with little or no representations as to its characteristics.

As many have already mentioned, the general principle of caveat emptor applies to private sales.

So when inspection is available, the buyer ought to exercise that opportunity.

Basically, it is an evidential matter that disfavours the buyer because by not inspecting the goods he is treated as having accepted them in whatever state the seller delivers them. He is not given the benefit of the doubt because he did not take the opportunity to reduce his risk by inspecting the goods.

Sorry it's a bit waffley!
 
Darremi said:
Cptrayes

Ahh SOGA applied, that explains it then!

I think it would depend upon the wording of the advert. If the seller makes representations about the horse's characteristics such as "snaffle mouthed" or "no vices", it is bought unseen and then turns out shortly after to be a complete monster then the buyer may still succeed.

However, where there is no evidence that the horse had behavioural problems before the sale and the seller has represented the horse as having good characteristics and it later does not. A failure to inspect the horse may reflect adversely against the buyer evidentially. The same could be said where the horse is "sold as seen" with little or no representations as to its characteristics.

As many have already mentioned, the general principle of caveat emptor applies to private sales.

So when inspection is available, the buyer ought to exercise that opportunity.

Basically, it is an evidential matter that disfavours the buyer because by not inspecting the goods he is treated as having accepted them in whatever state the seller delivers them. He is not given the benefit of the doubt because he did not take the opportunity to reduce his risk by inspecting the goods.

Sorry it's a bit waffley!
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me. :)
 
Lizzie66 said:
You would be correct if the sale was by a dealer, if its a private sale then you would only be liable if you knowingly made a false statement.
Click to expand...

Is that right? I thought I'd read in lots of places that it does not have to be knowingly incorrect, just incorrect. For example, if an owner made a private sale saying the horse had no vices, because she had it on hunting livery and never saw it stood in a stable, and the horse weaves and always has, is the seller not liable in that case? I thought they were, private sale or not.

Whatever, I've decided never to sell a horse if I can't afford to buy it back again! What a minefield.
 
cptrayes said:
Is that right? I thought I'd read in lots of places that it does not have to be knowingly incorrect, just incorrect. For example, if an owner made a private sale saying the horse had no vices, because she had it on hunting livery and never saw it stood in a stable, and the horse weaves and always has, is the seller not liable in that case? I thought they were, private sale or not.

Whatever, I've decided never to sell a horse if I can't afford to buy it back again! What a minefield.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct CPT. I am pretty sure there was something going on like this recently and "knowingly" or not was too open to interpretation and misuse so it was not relevant whether the issue was known or not.

I think in layman's terms, just as a buyer is responsible for checking something is right...so is the seller.
 
cptrayes said:
Is that right? I thought I'd read in lots of places that it does not have to be knowingly incorrect, just incorrect. For example, if an owner made a private sale saying the horse had no vices, because she had it on hunting livery and never saw it stood in a stable, and the horse weaves and always has, is the seller not liable in that case? I thought they were, private sale or not.

Whatever, I've decided never to sell a horse if I can't afford to buy it back again! What a minefield.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is as bad as people are making out. Obviously there are some horror stories around. but also many more good stories :-).

I wonder if some of the stories about behavioural problems are because the buyer has bitten off more than they can chew. Buying a horse that is too sharp or unsuitable and then changing its stable routine. I know that my eventer is very chilled with me because I exercise him a lot and he lives out. But if he suddenly was kept in and fed up he would suddenly turn into a raging monster!

As long as you are honest, know your horse well and document everything said at the time of the sale then you ought to be okay. If it has vices just tell the buyer. When people try to cover things up they get in trouble!

Also vet the buyer for competence and educate them on the importance of maintaining the horse's routine?
 
One horse may be absolutely ft for purpose on one owners hands but not in another. It may be she is very unexperienced but believes herself to be better than she is. Anything other than an absolute plod that moves at 2miles an hour might, to her be fizzy!

we have an owner that refers to hooves as "nails" but apparently has lots of experience riding 16.5 horses. Need i say more.
 
Doesn't seem to matter how much 'proof' the buyer has. I bought a horse quite a few yeas ago. First horse so never had it vetted, advert showed pics of horse SJing and being ridden x country......Horse was advertised as 'brilliant allrounder' & stated 'rider more important than price'......which insinuated that this horse was rideable. Tried the horse & seller said she was a little bit stiff but nothing to worry about- goes away after a few minutes when ridden and suggested I lunge her as it helped too. (!) So bought the horse and took her advice then horse went really quite lame....got vet out straight away who advised a bute trial. At the time I didn't blame the seller However, I still couldn't ride her a couple of months later and was spending a fortune of vet bills & bute so called the young lady to have a chat. Young lady made every excuse under the sun not to speak to me so it ended up taking a phone call from my mother to arrange a meeting at her fathers house. So Mum & I went along that night and I explained to the family what had been happening and was really nice about it, I didn't accuse them of anything as hoped it could be settled amicably. So when the father turned round and told me 'I don't have any money to give you' I was quite shocked...... I suggested that they just take the horse back & we'd forget about the money but it was still a no. I thanked him and left then saw my solicitor. I took vets advice to give horse plently turnout and not to ride however I got a barrage of letter from sellers solicitor saying I had not taken her advice to lunge & ride the horse like she had recommeded. (!)The girl was in and out of employment and every solicitor she had dropped her like a hot potato..I needed t prove that this lameness had been ongoing and so my solicitor advised her to provide access to vet records. Of course she didn't like this but after a fight she finally gave them over.....I got a print out sent to me and the vet visits were about 4 pages long.....constant bute and lameness investigations. Even with this evidence it never got to court and I lost interest in the investigation and wanted to put it all behind me after I had to have my lovely horse PTS nearly a year later.

Knowing what I do now I wouldn't have even looked in the direction of that horse now. But you live and learn....I would never trust anyone except family when it comes to money/buying horses & Id never have anything less than a 5 stage vetting....... I trusted that girl, the horse had given her 7 years of fun doing BSJA etc. but it just shows you how people change when money is involved. Karma has hit her in the face big time, shes had drug problem and her dad lost his business/reputation.....cant say I feel sorry for them in the slightest after the heatache they put me through!
 
Last edited:
el_Snowflakes said:
Doesn't seem to matter how much 'proof' the buyer has. I bought a horse quite a few yeas ago. First horse so never had it vetted, advert showed pics of horse SJing and being ridden x country......Horse was advertised as 'brilliant allrounder' & stated 'rider more important than price'......which insinuated that this horse was rideable. Tried the horse & seller said she was a little bit stiff but nothing to worry about- goes away after a few minutes when ridden and suggested I lunge her as it helped too. (!) So bought the horse and took her advice then horse went really quite lame....got vet out straight away who advised a bute trial. At the time I didn't blame the seller However, I still couldn't ride her a couple of months later and was spending a fortune of vet bills & bute so called the young lady to have a chat. Young lady made every excuse under the sun not to speak to me so it ended up taking a phone call from my mother to arrange a meeting at her fathers house. So Mum & I went along that night and I explained to the family what had been happening and was really nice about it, I didn't accuse them of anything as hoped it could be settled amicably. So when the father turned round and told me 'I don't have any money to give you' I was quite shocked...... I suggested that they just take the horse back & we'd forget about the money but it was still a no. I thanked him and left then saw my solicitor. I took vets advice to give horse plently turnout and not to ride however I got a barrage of letter from sellers solicitor saying I had not taken her advice to lunge & ride the horse like she had recommeded. (!)The girl was in and out of employment and every solicitor she had dropped her like a hot potato..I needed t prove that this lameness had been ongoing and so my solicitor advised her to provide access to vet records. Of course she didn't like this but after a fight she finally gave them over.....I got a print out sent to me and the vet visits were about 4 pages long.....constant bute and lameness investigations. Even with this evidence it never got to court and I lost interest in the investigation and wanted to put it all behind me after I had to have my lovely horse PTS nearly a year later.

Knowing what I do now I wouldn't have even looked in the direction of that horse now. But you live and learn....I would never trust anyone except family when it comes to money/buying horses & Id never have anything less than a 5 stage vetting....... I trusted that girl, the horse had given her 7 years of fun doing BSJA etc. but it just shows you how people change when money is involved. Karma has hit her in the face big time, shes had drug problem and her dad lost his business/reputation.....cant say I feel sorry for them in the slightest after the heatache they put me through!
Click to expand...

To be fair a 5* vetting would have exposed this horse. A vetting is worth every penny when it comes to buying a horse, especially a competition horse.
 
Darremi said:
To be fair a 5* vetting would have exposed this horse. A vetting is worth every penny when it comes to buying a horse, especially a competition horse.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but at the time I was completely new and naive to buying horses. However, my mistake was genuine and honest. The seller knew better and took advantage which is in my view a disgusting thing to do....I never mentioned it before buy I told seller I was a novice and later found the horse was very flighty and reared at times. I even told her that as I was jut getting back into horses again I might invest in a BP.....her response was 'I dont reccomend a BP as they are the main casue of injury in a fall'......Youd be fogiven for thinking I was mad to believe her rubbish but then again....she did tell me she was a riding instructor.........:0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top