Buyer Beware

I'm sorry but you still should have had a vetting in this country - you can't use that as an excuse to have a go at the dealer! Hopefully it is a lesson learned and you will get the next horse you buy vetted before purchase.
 
Feel sorry for you Mog. The dealer if she was a good one would have taken horse back and refunded. As you say she had said 5 stage vetting abroad, I hope you have all this down in writing and the best of luck to you:)
 
I find it hard to feel sorry myself johnrobert.
OP has paid what appears to be a considerable amount of money for a horse they decided to not bother vetting.....utter madness.
And if the horses value is over a certain amount, OP had to of known they would need a vetting certificate to insure the animal by any reputable company!
 
If I was to be spending a large amount of money on a horse I would be unable to insure properly due to not having the required vetting cert, I would be taking the word of NO seller, dealer or private!
 
johnrobert said:
Feel sorry for you Mog. The dealer if she was a good one would have taken horse back and refunded. As you say she had said 5 stage vetting abroad, I hope you have all this down in writing and the best of luck to you:)
Click to expand...

Why on earth should they take the horse back if they sold it believing it to be sound?? We have such a culture of blame now it really annoys me! The horse was sold sound and went lame - it happens every day of the week, horse goes out to field sound and comes in lame - dealers can't be expected to x-ray feet constantly incase of changes which may cause future lameness! Absolutely ridiculous!!
 
LizScott said:
Why on earth should they take the horse back if they sold it believing it to be sound?? We have such a culture of blame now it really annoys me! The horse was sold sound and went lame - it happens every day of the week, horse goes out to field sound and comes in lame - dealers can't be expected to x-ray feet constantly incase of changes which may cause future lameness! Absolutely ridiculous!!
Click to expand...


They should take the horse back because it had a chronic pre-existing condition that meant it was not suitable for the purpose it was sold !

There seems to be lot of finger pointing at Mogs re not having the horse vetted, and if she had bought privately it would probably be valid but SHE DIDN'T.

She bought it from a dealer and is therefore entitled to rely on the sale of goods act to protect her in ensuring the purchase is fit for its purpose (namely competing at dressage).



The dealer should take the horse back and refund the money, and I assume this what Mogs solicitors will be arguing in court.

Horses with chronic lameness conditions can be sound for a period, especially if not worked hard or only worked on soft ground. Now the dealer may or may not have known of the condition, but it doesn't really matter if the dealer didn't know , the law assumes they should know. Legally the onus is more on the dealer to get the horse vetted than the purchaser. Obviously this is not normally cost effective for the dealer, but that's the risk THEY take.
 
Last edited:
Wow , some unbelievable attitudes going on here.

Poor dealer!? The whole point of the the law is that if you are going to buy and sell something you have a responsibilty to the market. True it is much harder to know if there is a problem with a horse than a car, but if you are a dealer you are setting yourself up as a professional with knowledge that would allow you to provide more safety and comeback to the purchaser, and therfore be able to ask a premium. Some dealers think that they have no responsibilty for what they sell , other better ones fully understand there obligations.

Yes be sensible and have it vetted, but the Caveat Emptor attitude of people selling horses makes thee whole process like walking into the lions den for all but the most savvy. Surely this can't be right?
 
So a dealer has an obligation to take back any horse which turns out to have had any pre-existing condition that affects its usefulness? How long after a sale would this apply? And does the period of 'warranty' extend the more money you pay? And the dealer has an obligation to carry out whatever tests necessary to discover these conditions that as yet show no symptoms?


When my horse was PTS after the failed attempts to treat his OCD and I went to buy another one my mum said "Spend a bit more money so you can get one that lasts a bit longer" - clearly my mum does not ride!
 
Ask for a copy of the previous vetting. She must have a copy of it if that's why she didn't bother. Assuming of course she's not telling you porkies.
Do you know where the horse came from abroad? Can you trace his previous owners? I do hope he's not one of the ones imported cheaply (because they are heading to the abattoirs with escalating lameness problems) and sold on for a vastly inflated price once sound after being rested for a while.
 
Yes, mog should have had the horse vetted. That was a mistake. However the horse is not fit for purpose and she bought it from a trader, therefore she is entiled to a refund and this is the point- the dealer wont giver her one.

IF the dealer didnt know about the foot condition then yes, its hard luck on the dealer. However thats business and they have a duty to refund the money!

Also, for those feeling sorry for the dealer- the dealer should have made sure the horse was fit for purpose before they themselves bought it, knowing that they would have to sell it as such. So either the dealer was negligent/lazy/not bothered themselves to make sure the horse was fit for purpose, they were also sold the horse on trust or ripped off or the dealer knew about the issue and hasnt (for obvious reasons) declared it.

So i think the OP is a reasonable one- it gives a warning to other people that you need to be very careful and thorough when buying horses and the law isnt always enough protection unless you are prepared to spend thousands upholding it.
 
If I bought from a dealer, however trustworthy or reputable, I would belt and brace myself and get a vetting. One of the questions on my vetting form was fit for purpose, which Archie was, so I should imagine this would have been broached during a vetting had one been carried out. Although there are many unscrupulous dealers there are many who are reputable and honest but even those cannot possibly know what the future may hold for horses they sell on in terms of health and suitability and it is the responsibility of the buyer too, not all blame should lie at the feet of a dealer. So your title, Buyer Beware is good, fundamental advice however buyers should do their research and instil a belt and brace attitude at all times, in my opinion.

OP, I do hope this is resolves soon for you and wish you luck xxx
 
The kinds of problems this horse has would not necessarily come up in a vetting, but would need an MRI, should dealers have to MRI all horses before they sell them? What about scintigraphy then to exclude back problems which are so common? After all kissing spines is a pre-existing condition that can take years to show symptoms, shouldn't all dealers get a scintigraphy done on all horses to make sure?
 
I'm confused really if you bought a horse that as you said "wasn't a cheap hack" im assuming you spent a considerable amount on said horse, so if as you have said can afford the legal route then why not get the horse vetted??? Whether the seller is legit or not i wouldn't be happy handing money over for a horse not vetted as not ever problem is noticeable. Don't know sellers side as there is always to sides but you should of got a vetting done before any money changed hands
 
Booboos said:
The kinds of problems this horse has would not necessarily come up in a vetting, but would need an MRI, should dealers have to MRI all horses before they sell them?
Click to expand...

No, but I refuse to believe that the first time this horse decided to show lameness symptoms as a result of a long term degenerative condition coincidentally happened within the first couple of weeks after the OP bought it. The real b'stard in this chain of events is whoever has had this horse when it has shown signs of going wrong, which it will have done, and chosen to get rid quick before it worsens without investigating, probably for a low price, to a dealer who doesn't ask too many questions about history and who can bump up the price with a quick turnover while the horse is still right. Anyone who thinks the dealers in this chain of events are sweet innocents being taken advantage of are very deluded IMHO.
 
Last edited:
I completely agree that if someone knew the horse had a problem and passed it on without disclosing they are scum and should pay for it, but I am not sure this is the case here. What evidence does OP have that anyone knew before?

I am a bit confused as there is a similar thread by someone with the same user name on the BD forum which though says that the buyer was given a foreign vetting certificate. The OP there (also by the name of 'Mog') is upset the vetting did not include bloods or x-rays, but surely then that is a matter to take up with the vet and depends on the agreement between the buyer and her vet.

I don't think all dealers are shady (I am not a dealer!) and nor do I think that all buyers are genuine (I am a buyer!).
 
Booboos said:
I completely agree that if someone knew the horse had a problem and passed it on without disclosing they are scum and should pay for it, but I am not sure this is the case here. What evidence does OP have that anyone knew before?

I am a bit confused as there is a similar thread by someone with the same user name on the BD forum which though says that the buyer was given a foreign vetting certificate. The OP there (also by the name of 'Mog') is upset the vetting did not include bloods or x-rays, but surely then that is a matter to take up with the vet and depends on the agreement between the buyer and her vet.

I don't think all dealers are shady (I am not a dealer!) and nor do I think that all buyers are genuine (I am a buyer!).
Click to expand...

My point is that if you go to say Boots and buy a hairdryer that is neatly boxed up and looks perfectly ok when unpacked but when you plug it in either initially or within 6 weeks it fails you can take it back and you are entitled to a full refund - if you have dropped it in the bath or smashed it with a hammer you are not. It does not matter if anyone KNEW if it was broken. A horse with concussion related injuries to the foot is not one that has accidentally knocked itself etc. It had them before for some months -whether it showed or not. My mistake not to get a UK vetting and bloods and X rays - Dealer is shady - if only in her refusal to comply with the law. Years ago we bought a horse from a very well known UK breeder and dressage rider. For some reason the horse would not settle and displayed some rather difficult behaviour - we phoned this lady and she said 'return it immediately' - no questions asked full refund - that is honest professional behaviour - a credit to her.
I was assured a foreign 5 stage vetting would get me UK insurance! WRONG
These dealers hope you will claim loss of use rather than confront them and take them to court where they belong if they do not comply with our laws.
 
mog said:
I was assured a foreign 5 stage vetting would get me UK insurance! WRONG
These dealers hope you will claim loss of use rather than confront them and take them to court where they belong if they do not comply with our laws.
Click to expand...


Sorry if I sound like I am picking holes, but you are confusing me. You do not sound like a blethering idiot, and must therefore be aware nearly all insurance companies require the vetting cert to be within 30 days of issue for them to accept it.
Never heard of a foreign certificate of vetting being refused (how the hell does everyone else insure horses they are bringing over from abroad!). The only problem I can see is the foreign certificate was out of date and unacceptable to the insurance company.
I am sorry you have had the trauma of a lame horse, but I still cannot see why you never got the horse vetted when you were handing over, what appears to be considerable amounts of money!
 
I do think it is possible for horses to deteriorate, and even have bony changes, and for the people handling them not to be aware of these. In fact I have been rehabilitating one with exactly these changes where it appears nobody else (including a farrier) had any idea of his condition.

Horses can be very stoic animals, it is a sign of their good nature that they will continue to endeavour to do everything we ask of them in spite of pain and injury and sometimes it does take a fresh pair of eyes to recognise the bigger underlying issues.

I'm sorry that you have ended up with a horse that you are currently unable to ride and enjoy - while you are waiting to progress the claim against the dealer is the horse improving?
 
I am not that sympathetic either. 1. You say that the horse showed very slight lameness on a circle on hard ground (or words to that effect) - that would have shown up in a vetting 2. if the horse was going to be worth more than £2 or 2500K, then the insurance would have requested a 5 * vetting and if you weren't sure that the foreign vetting would cover you, you should have called your insurance - or a insurance company to check. I have done that when seriously considering buying an eventer who had had colic -owners advised me of this and I checked with my insurance company to understand the implications. Blood tests I would do automatically with a 5* - x rays - not as standard unless I really was paying mega bucks (like over £10K). I understand fit for purpose but at what point can it be decided that the "blame" would transfer from dealer to new owner?

What I am interested in now is from a legal perspective - where do you stand as a buyer if it can be proved that the horse had a pre-existing issue, even if you can't prove that the dealer knew this? and is your case weakened by not choosing to vet/blood test at the time of purchase?.
 
mog said:
My point is that if you go to say Boots and buy a hairdryer that is neatly boxed up and looks perfectly ok when unpacked but when you plug it in either initially or within 6 weeks it fails you can take it back and you are entitled to a full refund - if you have dropped it in the bath or smashed it with a hammer you are not. It does not matter if anyone KNEW if it was broken.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And if Boots didnt do their homework themselves before buying the hairdryers to sell on then thats bad business. If they couldnt ensure the product was fit for purpose then they take that risk by buying it to sell on- and if it turns out faulty then they have taken the risk to stand by the law and give a refund. You can still feel sorry for them if you want but ultimately they are selling something and if it turns out to be damaged then they have to refund.

Yes, the buyer should also take precautions (youre silly if you dont when buying horses imo) before parting with thousands for something but ultimately if you buy from a trades person (compared to a private buyer) then you are entitled to a refund if the goods arent fit for purpose. Whether its a horse or a hairdryer.

Yes, its ridiculous that a horse is classed the same as a hairdryer but so be it. So i dont feel sorry for the dealer as for whatever reason they sold something not fit for purpose and as a trader you have to accept that you may get returns if things are faulty.
 
It may well be that the law classes a horse in the same category as a hairdryer, but the law is often an ass!

A hairdryer is a manufactured product, made for a specific purpose, a horse is not. There are many, many ways a horse may not be fit for the purpose it was bought, not all of them are things you can expect the seller to reasonably control or be morally liable for.

In any case, am I right in now thinking that the dealer did have the horse vetted abroad and it passed? What more would you want the dealer to do to establish the horse was fit for purpose? If the vetting missed something you should take this up with the vet, if it was incomplete you should have had your own vetting done and requested x-rays, MRI, scintigraphy, etc at your cost.
 
mog said:
A horse with concussion related injuries to the foot is not one that has accidentally knocked itself etc. It had them before for some months -whether it showed or not.
Click to expand...

In my opinion as a layman only, I think that if you have vets who will say that this injury would have occured prior to the horse being purchased, then I'm sure you have a good case.

The dealer may well not have known about it - but thats a risk the dealer takes. If they wanted to protect themselves against having returned (lame) horses and paying out refunds, I'm sure they could if they wished get insurance for that.
 
Booboos said:
In any case, am I right in now thinking that the dealer did have the horse vetted abroad and it passed? What more would you want the dealer to do to establish the horse was fit for purpose? If the vetting missed something you should take this up with the vet, if it was incomplete you should have had your own vetting done and requested x-rays, MRI, scintigraphy, etc at your cost.
Click to expand...

I think if the dealer had the vetting done, it is them who should take it up with the vet, but there are plenty of things which even 5* vettings won't detect.

The OP made the transaction with the dealer, not the vet (I think) - so it is the dealer who she should pursue. Whether the dealer pursues the vets or not is not her concern. IMHO :)

I think we have established the OP wishes she had her own vetting done, however as far as I know that doesn't change her rights to being sold a horse who is fit for purpose.
 
I am sure you are right Naturally, but that said I find it strange that the OP is talking about a horse in the same terms as one would about a washing machine, or a bike! Maybe if the OP has that attitude to the 'item' she purchased, then a bike would have been more suitable?
 
A dealer is a profesional and yes,subject to the sale of goods act. It is not a question of dodgy dealer or not. You pay a premium by going to a dealer and in return you have the security of the sale of goods act. If the dealer hasnt allowed sufficient margin on sales to cover this sort of thing ,it is their fault and their loss. What concerns me most and if provable ,really makes the OP,s case watertight,is the suggestion that the dealer tried to influence the OP not to have a vetting.
 
Mike007 said:
What concerns me most and if provable ,really makes the OP,s case watertight,is the suggestion that the dealer tried to influence the OP not to have a vetting.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! To even suggest to a buyer that they rely on a previous vetting - even if it was done in the UK a week earlier - suggests the dealer doesn'tWANT the horse vetted (probably because a 5 stage vetting includes a blood sample!)

Even when I sell a foal I know is healthy I always suggest that the buyer SHOULD get a 2 stage vetting (you can't 5 stage vet a foal very easily!) And for ridden horses I always recommend that they get a 5 stage vetting! (And to date I've never had one fail, nor did I expect them to!) But that 5 stage vetting protects the buyer against something I couldn't know about (e.g. a heart murmur under strenuous exercise) - and it also protects ME against a buyer who comes back 6 weeks later - having lamed a horse - or screwed up its wind - and tries to get a refund on the basis that the horse MUST have been a crock when they bought it.

I think it's highly likely the dealer knew the horse would not pass a vetting without Bute (which would of course be detected later when the horse went lame and the buyer asked for the blood to be tested!)
 
I feel sympathy for you Mog, you bought the horse in good faith and it didn't work out. You would love this horse to be sound so you can get on with your life and have a great time but it isn't. You're getting shot down in flames for not having the horse vetted but you say in your original post that you regret this, it's unlikely you'll not have a horse vetted in the future.

The dealer is selling as a business and like any business should expect returns if they are not 'fit for purpose'.
I agree that the seller may not have known about the condition but that's besides the point, they shouldn't be selling as dealers if they don't want to be covered by the 'Sale of Goods Act'.

I hope everything works out for you Mog, you must be going through hell thinking you'd got a lovely new horse for the summer and it's turned out to be lame and is costing you a fortune.
 
Mike007 said:
What concerns me most and if provable ,really makes the OP,s case watertight,is the suggestion that the dealer tried to influence the OP not to have a vetting.
Click to expand...

Completly agree to this too, how do we know that said dealer isnt one that buys from a meat man abroad (think someone else has already suggested this). I know there is a friesian dealer that has a bit of a rep for doing this. Selling horse with physical issues that he picks off the meat line for sky high prices.
 
OK, so just to get this right, people think that dealers should:
- carry out vettings to include x-rays, MRIs and scintigraphy even when there is no other indication of a problem
- refund for any horse that develops a 'pre-existing' condition at any time in the horse's life and regardless of whether the dealer knew anything about this or could have known about it
- and that this is a legitimate cost of doing business.

Even if this turns out to be a legal requirement, personally I find it ridiculous and I do feel sorry for dealers. Although there are many crooks out there, there are also many buyers who are totally unrealistic about what it means to own a horse and I don't see why the seller is responsible for them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top