Am I right or wrong?..

Technically I think you are maybe in a grey area regarding consumer rights unless you are confident you can prove the discussion happened. If you can then maybe that but is ok. Sounds like buyer chose to buy without a vetting which is on them. (Or didn't get a vet to check the lumps out before buying). But it's not sold unseen).

Could you take some legal advice yourself? Although if horse was bought for little money and can be sold again for similar it may be easier just to buy back and resell on to protect your reputation. I wouldn't offer to pay vets bills though.

Note that I don't think this discussion is going to provide any legal evidence for your case.
 
Jenko109 said:
Its clear we are not telling you what you want to hear.

Why bother asking 🤷🏼‍♀️
Click to expand...
Not true. It’s a debate & I find it interesting but debates are just that discussions and options. Nothing personal but we all have a right to one. Most responses are people putting themselves in the buyers position be interesting if any dealers responding with how this would make them feel.
 
LarkriseFarmUK said:
Not true. It’s a debate & I find it interesting but debates are just that discussions and options. Nothing personal but we all have a right to one. Most responses are people putting themselves in the buyers position be interesting if any dealers responding with how this would make them feel.
Click to expand...
I actually think that most posters are putting themselves in your position. You completed the sale with an error on the paperwork, (one error that is inherently part of the consumer rights act). Your are in business, so presumably would like to protect your reputation, and the overwhelming response is, protect your reputation and buy the horse back.
 
LarkriseFarmUK said:
But what right does she have when she found and accepted the lumps at viewing? I think it’s a pretty simple case. If the lumps bothered her she could have walked away or got her vet to check before agreeing she didn’t. She said she was happy to continue with purchase!
Click to expand...

You are completely right with honest straightforward people, but unfortunately the law can be an ass if you know how to play it and your paper trail doesn’t really support. Misdescribed will be their angle.
 
BTW Chat GPT seems much more optimistic for you. Maybe we are being too pessimistic for you.

From Chat GPT: I’m not a solicitor, but I can break this down for you under UK law (England & Wales) and how the small claims track tends to deal with horse sale disputes.

1. Private vs Trade Sale
  • If you are a professional horse dealer, the buyer is legally considered a consumer, even if they didn’t get a vetting.
  • That means the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) applies.
  • Under the CRA, a horse (treated in law as “goods”) must be:
    • As described
    • Of satisfactory quality (taking into account age, price, use, etc.)
    • Fit for purpose (if a purpose was stated by the buyer)

So – your “sold as seen, no warranty” receipt doesn’t override the buyer’s statutory rights. A trader cannot contract out of the CRA.

2. The “lumps”
  • You didn’t advertise the horse as having lumps, but disclosed them at the viewing when you noticed them.
  • The buyer was made aware and still chose to proceed without a vetting. That strengthens your position, because under the CRA, defects that were pointed out or obvious before sale cannot later be claimed as grounds for rejection.

Example: if a car dealer points out scratches on the paintwork, the buyer can’t later reject the car for those scratches.

3. Sarcoids vs Rubs
  • At the moment, there’s no vet report confirming sarcoids. Text messages aren’t evidence.
  • Even if they were sarcoids, the buyer was aware of the lumps before paying and took the risk by not vetting.
  • Case law shows that where the buyer had opportunity to investigate a defect and chose not to, their chance of a successful claim is much weaker.

4. Remedies under CRA

If the lumps were not disclosed, the buyer could potentially claim:
  • Short-term right to reject (within 30 days) for a refund.
  • Or repair/replacement (not realistic with horses).
  • Or a partial refund (damages).

But here, because they were disclosed at the point of sale and the buyer still proceeded, the defect is not “hidden.” That’s your strongest legal defence.

5. Likelihood in Small Claims

  • For the buyer to win, they would need to prove:
    1. The horse had sarcoids at the time of sale.
    2. You misrepresented the horse (deliberately or negligently).
    3. The issue was not disclosed or obvious.
  • From what you’ve described:
    1. You disclosed the lumps.
    2. The buyer accepted them.
    3. They declined a vetting.
    4. You didn’t mislead them.
Chances of buyer winning: low (unless they can show you deliberately lied or concealed information).

6. Costs

If it does go to small claims:

  • Even if you win, you won’t recover solicitor’s fees – only court fees, travel, capped loss of earnings.
  • If the buyer loses, they may still feel satisfied they “had their day in court,” so sometimes threats don’t actually materialise into claims.

✅ Summary:


You’re correct – as long as you disclosed the lumps before money changed hands, and the buyer chose not to vet, then under UK consumer law they accepted the risk. It is very unlikely a court would order you to refund or pay vet bills on the basis of what you’ve described.

Yes — even if it’s just your word against hers, verbal evidence is still admissible in the small claims track. But here’s how it usually plays out in practice:

1. Your evidence
  • You can say (under oath if it came to a hearing) that the lumps were spotted during the viewing, you disclosed them immediately, and you even gave her the chance to walk away.
  • Your rider was present → that’s a witness.
  • The buyer’s friend was also present → technically that helps both ways, but if they agreed at the time the lumps weren’t a dealbreaker, it undermines her claim.
  • You’ve got the receipt wording (“no warranty, no return”), which isn’t a full legal shield but shows you were clear about the basis of sale

  • 2. Buyer’s evidence
  • Unless she has a vet report stating these were sarcoids at the point of sale, her claim is weak.
  • Texts saying “my vet thinks…” are hearsay unless she produces an actual signed vet statement.
  • Even then, she still has to overcome the fact she saw the lumps, discussed them, and proceeded without a vetting.
3.


Court approach

Small claims judges tend to be practical and look at fairness. They usually ask:
  • Was the buyer misled?
  • Was the issue hidden, or was it pointed out before purchase?
  • Did the buyer accept the risk by not vetting?
In your case:
  • The lumps were disclosed.
  • She had the chance to walk away or negotiate a discount.
  • She actively chose not to get a vetting.

That heavily reduces her chances.
4.

Verbal vs written


Verbal evidence on its own can win a case if the judge believes it. But you also have supporting context:
  • Your rider’s testimony.
  • The previous owner’s vet note saying the marks were not sarcoids.
  • The fact no vet report has been produced by the buyer.

So you’re not standing on “just your word” — you’ve got witnesses + supporting evidence.

👉 Bottom line:


Even with only verbal evidence, the buyer’s case looks weak because the lumps were not hidden, were discussed, and she still went ahead without vetting. That makes it very unlikely a small claims judge would award her costs or a refund.
 
LarkriseFarmUK said:
Not true. It’s a debate & I find it interesting but debates are just that discussions and options. Nothing personal but we all have a right to one. Most responses are people putting themselves in the buyers position be interesting if any dealers responding with how this would make them feel.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure people are putting themselves in the buyers position, rather they are looking at the evidence each party holds.
The buyer has an advert saying no lumps and bumps and a signed receipt that makes no mention of the discussion you had.
You have no evidence that the lumps were found at the viewing, that they were discussed with the buyer and that the buyer was happy to accept the risk. Your witness is your employee so could be thought to be biased.
It’s not that we don’t believe you, it’s more that we can see which way the court will likely rule based on the evidence each side has.
The suggestions given are being put forward to save you money and hassle.
 
I think she is a chancer, probably got another friend to look and is encouraging her to complain.
I would be fuming too if I was in your shoes, however she may have already bonded with the horse and wouldn't want to sell him back to you, but you offering to take him back, would look good in the eyes of a Court Judge if it got that far.
 
If l read this correctly she wants you to foot the vets bill not buy the horse back? So more likely she is a chancer and looking for a further reduction. I would buy the horse back less cost of keep for the time she’s had it. How much did you sell for? Trade price could be anything from about 2k upwards
 
LarkriseFarmUK said:
But what right does she have when she found and accepted the lumps at viewing? I think it’s a pretty simple case. If the lumps bothered her she could have walked away or got her vet to check before agreeing she didn’t. She said she was happy to continue.
Click to expand...
It makes no difference to consumer laws /sales of good acts
Horse isn't fit for purpose
It's as also said no lumps or bumps so false advertising too
Oh I didn't notice would be a weak defence
It's your job/responsibility to spot these things .
Sorry I don't think you have a leg to stand on.
 
LarkriseFarmUK said:
How are they mis described. We didn’t notice them. We found during viewing. We all felt and discussed. Buyer continued with purchase. I double checked are you happy with him. She said yes. She could have pulled out, advised she needs him vet checked or asked for discount. She did not.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you say.I wouldn't personally buy a horse without a vetting and if I did I would accept that there is an element of risk .However,your reputation is more valuable so on balance I think you should just buy the horse back.I wonder if she has tried this stunt before?
 
Would 200% say for your reputation offer to buy the horse back. If she says no, likelihood is they are just a chancer.

Do you have any yard CCTV or similar the conversation about finding the lumps, or them agreeing to take with them is even partially recorded on?
 
little_critter said:
I’m not sure people are putting themselves in the buyers position, rather they are looking at the evidence each party holds.
The buyer has an advert saying no lumps and bumps and a signed receipt that makes no mention of the discussion you had.
You have no evidence that the lumps were found at the viewing, that they were discussed with the buyer and that the buyer was happy to accept the risk. Your witness is your employee so could be thought to be biased.
It’s not that we don’t believe you, it’s more that we can see which way the court will likely rule based on the evidence each side has.
The suggestions given are being put forward to save you money and hassle.
Click to expand...
I’ve messages since the sale to confirm she saw them at viewing. Thanks so much. Appreciate all replies x
 
ElleSkywalker said:
Would 200% say for your reputation offer to buy the horse back. If she says no, likelihood is they are just a chancer.

Do you have any yard CCTV or similar the conversation about finding the lumps, or them agreeing to take with them is even partially recorded on?
Click to expand...
Yes I have cctv footage and it does show us all looking & discussing the lumps. 👏🏼😊
 
Caski said:
Niggling in the back of my mind is 'poor horse', cheap end of the market for reasons unknown.

I can't offer advice, just concern for the horse which I hope lands in a decent home.
Click to expand...
Sad thing is this home is AMAZING & the lady tbh I think is a good person. We know the same people we are a village apart. I’ve no worry the horse won’t have the best home just think she needs to take a breather and re evaluate that she’s got a lovely youngster at trade price with lumps that might never ever change. Why pick at something that’s causing zero issue. Especially when you accepted them at the viewing. 🤷🏽‍♀️
 
eahotson said:
I agree with everything you say.I wouldn't personally buy a horse without a vetting and if I did I would accept that there is an element of risk .However,your reputation is more valuable so on balance I think you should just buy the horse back.I wonder if she has tried this stunt before?
Click to expand...
I wonder too. Reputation is everything and my business and horses are literally my world however even if I took back horse or paid her vet bills , my rep can still be damaged. She could still slate me, post on socials. Tell everyone all sorts. So I just do what I thinks right. I’m honest and can sleep at night but as for reputation & what people want to say whether true or not I cannot act in a way to try and protect that other than act correctly and in the best of my abilities. Xx
 
I agree you aren’t in the wrong (in my personal and not professional opinion.)

I agree you shouldn’t have to pay/take the horse back as you weren’t at fault and buyer agreed to go ahead.

But I think the point everyone is saying is although you’ve not done wrong they have written proof to fight against the conversion you had with her.

Buyer sounds like a nightmare and a chancer.

You could absolutely let her take you to court and see how you get on but from most people’s view point here, if you take the horse back then your reputation stays intact whereas the buyer could shout on every social media your dodgy and don’t buy from you. That is very damaging to you even though it’s lies.

I wouldn’t want to let these types of people win but in this case when your reputation is at risk it may be the best for you. There’s so many dodgy dealers you really don’t want to be lumped with them.

Once again in my non professional opinion I would offer to take the horse back at a lower price. Keep all conversations saved and if they say no then you have them for proof for court if it goes that far.
 
Peglo said:
I agree you aren’t in the wrong (in my personal and not professional opinion.)

I agree you shouldn’t have to pay/take the horse back as you weren’t at fault and buyer agreed to go ahead.

But I think the point everyone is saying is although you’ve not done wrong they have written proof to fight against the conversion you had with her.

Buyer sounds like a nightmare and a chancer.

You could absolutely let her take you to court and see how you get on but from most people’s view point here, if you take the horse back then your reputation stays intact whereas the buyer could shout on every social media your dodgy and don’t buy from you. That is very damaging to you even though it’s lies.

I wouldn’t want to let these types of people win but in this case when your reputation is at risk it may be the best for you. There’s so many dodgy dealers you really don’t want to be lumped with them.

Once again in my non professional opinion I would offer to take the horse back at a lower price. Keep all conversations saved and if they say no then you have them for proof for court if it goes that far.
Click to expand...
Good advice thank you. Sadly I have been on the end of lies over socials / dodgy dealer posts. Only the odd one and they always break my heart but honestly I’ve learnt in this game you can’t roll over with the worry they might slander you because tbh I could take horse back or pay her vet bills as she’s asked but it doesn’t mean she won’t still do everything she can to damage my rep. That’s out of my control. Just wish she never messaged me in the first place tbh!
 
LarkriseFarmUK said:
Not true. It’s a debate & I find it interesting but debates are just that discussions and options. Nothing personal but we all have a right to one. Most responses are people putting themselves in the buyers position be interesting if any dealers responding with how this would make them feel.
Click to expand...
I used to deal a fair bit, mostly quality children's ponies, natives and otttbs, an eclectic mix!

From what you state, if that had been me then
A, the bill of sale would have been replaced with a correct one prior to taking payment.
B, The legal terms would have been included, as you'll know as a dealer that you cannot over ride basic laws regarding the sales act.
C, I would have collected horse and refunded without quibble.

Sorry if that's not what you want to hear.
 
LarkriseFarmUK said:
Not true. It’s a debate & I find it interesting but debates are just that discussions and options. Nothing personal but we all have a right to one. Most responses are people putting themselves in the buyers position be interesting if any dealers responding with how this would make them feel.
Click to expand...
Yes I appreciate that some of us are putting ourselves in the buyers position and those that have been affected by being missold are probably not the best to answer as I expect we will always be biased in some way.

In particular TFF point B rings true to me.

But won't your reputation be harmed more if you are not seen to be fair in accepting the return of the horse? This is why I have bought five horse through dealers, because their reputations 15 yrs and 22yrs of dealing meant more to me as a guarantee than any vetting could ever provided me with. Ironically the first and seventh were private sales and total disasters!
 
Last edited:
Jenko109 said:
Its clear we are not telling you what you want to hear.

Why bother asking 🤷🏼‍♀️
Click to expand...
It’s kind of pointless repeatedly asking when you’re being given this same response throughout.
Amymay Again said:
I actually think that most posters are putting themselves in your position. You completed the sale with an error on the paperwork, (one error that is inherently part of the consumer rights act). Your are in business, so presumably would like to protect your reputation, and the overwhelming response is, protect your reputation and buy the horse back.
Click to expand...
And again. 👍
LarkriseFarmUK said:
I wonder too. Reputation is everything and my business and horses are literally my world however even if I took back horse or paid her vet bills , my rep can still be damaged. She could still slate me, post on socials. Tell everyone all sorts. So I just do what I thinks right. I’m honest and can sleep at night but as for reputation & what people want to say whether true or not I cannot act in a way to try and protect that other than act correctly and in the best of my abilities. Xx
Click to expand...
She could still slate you, yes, but you will have done the logical, sensible thing and have fulfilled a responsibility to maintain your reputation locally, so whatever she says, you can say you discussed then took back the horse as a goodwill gesture, thereby demonstrating your willingness to be the better person. It’s pointless debating this. The quicker you act, the more you do to safeguard your reputation. You know that as a dealer, it’s all too easy to be shot down in flames by one unhappy customer. Not mentioning the lumps in the advert is key.

Bilateral lumps is unlikely to be sarcoids, bit of a mad coincidence to have them in both the same areas, but take back the horse, get him vetted/looked at by your own vet.
 
Given that the lumps/rubs are in exactly the same place on both sides of the horse, and that we have just had a summer where the ground's been rock hard for weeks, I would be more inclined to suspect they are pressure/rub marks from the hard ground, possibly created between point of elbow and ground when lying down/getting up.

This could all be a storm in a teacup, type-thing. I expect the buyer was excited about her new horse, then someone put a dampener on things saying they think the marks are sarcoids, told her she'd probably been duped, and hey presto, the world comes crashing down.

Before deciding what to do I'd want to see a vet report stating that they are actually sarcoids.


ETA: Just seen your reply, Cinnamontoast - great minds think alike re your last sentence!
 
Lumps could be anything, who is this vet, name tele number, now please today.

Sarcoids usually look like sarcoids.

Unless the lumps prevent the horse from performing the job it was bought for the horse is fit for purpose as it stands in a trade sale surely, you say she has been enjoying this horse!

Say you will take the horse back, just see what the reaction is, if the answer is no won't return, ask why, perhaps they are generally happy with horse, keep message as evidence, for use on social media if it turns funny.

Not sure but sarcoids are pathology which need ongoing monitoring, when we say lumps and bumps it normally refers to injury knocks, bangs residual tissue, scar tissue old wounds etc in horsey talk

Do everything you can to keep out of court, once you hand over to that lot you are all at sea without a paddle, justice is an elusive thing
 
Thank her for getting in touch, ask her to send the vet report and then ask when she would like you to collect the horse and refund.

I don’t work with horses but I do own a business and the customer is almost always right, we’ve lost profit on the odd job because the customer wasn’t happy (pipe in wrong place for instance) and we fix it to make them happy as our reputation is worth ££££
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top