Court action over horse

[_GG_]

With a private sale the buyer has to prove misrepresentation. ie that the vendor misrepresented the horse. The burden of proof will be on the buyer who will need proof that the horse acted in this way before she bouht it and that the vendor was aware of it. It is much harder than bringing a claim against a dealer when she could cite "not fit for purpose".

The dealer with the livery in my posts said the above. But was quickly reminded of the pictures she had posted on facebook, along with descriptions and other peoples comments told a different story. Funnily enough, she didn't want to take the pony back until those posts were found by the livery

 

[1stclassalan]

Assumption is the talent of the foolish.

Oh oh - that one's going in my little book! Fighting legal cases is a bit like working on a pig farm - don't take anything for grunted!

Don't forget - small claims court will only cost the plaintif £70 to get the summons issued - it only gets more expensive once lawyers are involved or the case moves to the High Court.

At High Court you are almost bound to be heard by someone who goes 'untin' shootin' and fishin' and is basically "one of us" or wants to be; however this only works in favour of Horseys when they are being sued by dastardly commonfolk but when they sue each other it's viewed as rather bad form.

Small claims are more likely to look at the case as a simple business contract and which side is more likely to be telling the truth. Now time was, an animal was imbued with a mind of it's own and therefore the owner couldn't be blamed for its actions - this has now changed ( though I must have missed all the rioting in the streets this deserved!) and owners of any animal can be sued for damages and even criminal liability if say, one escapes and causes accidents.

You are less likely to find folk who understand words like pelham ( er.... wasn't that a film about train hijackers?) or snaffle in a small claims court - they really don't know hay from a bull's foot so you need the help of "expert witnesses" - more expense.

Interesting post - do keep us updated.

 

[ribbons]

I totally agree GG about legal advice. Just to put minds at rest.

Forums are great for batting ideas and thoughts around, but serious situations need correct advice.
There are doctors, dentists,
lawyers, police officers etc etc on forums, all knowing their subject thoroughly. But other members (mostly) don't know who they are
for sure. So play safe and take legal advice.

 

[_GG_]

Oh oh - that one's going in my little book! Fighting legal cases is a bit like working on a pig farm - don't take anything for grunted!

Interesting post - do keep us updated.

This made me laugh. That is a true original GG quote...I spurted it out on facebook when reading of a cystic fibrosis sufferer being left a vile note on her windscreen for taking a disabled space away from REAL disabled people.

I like it too...I think I shall follow your lead and also start a book

The thing that made me laugh is, "don't take anything for grunted". GG is short for gruntygiggles so thanks for the giggle

 

[MagicMelon]

Why should they refund the full asking price when this lady has had the horse 5 months and ruined it ?

Exactly. She is a total loony if she thinks she can get her money back after 5 weeks let alone 5 MONTHS! Shame for the horse though. Tell your friend to let her take her to court, she wont win.

 

[lachlanandmarcus]

With a private sale the buyer will have to prove misrepresentation on a balance of probabilities. And buyers need to ask the right questions, as sellers are obliged only to answer the questions asked truthfully, not to volunteer info, Unless there is evidence of misrepresentation, and the seller comes across reasonably, the buyer is likely to lose. After all, there is a reason that it is more expensive to buy from a reputable dealer thana private seller, you are paying for the extra legal rights you gain when doing do.

If the seller is (openly or not) a dealer, which is normally defined as someone selling more than 3 horses a year in trading standards eyes, then the horse must be fit for purpose and the buyer has a reasonable period in which to return the horse and be refunded. However like a used car, while the legal limit for bringing a claim is 6 years, for a used horse or used car the limit that will be deemed reasonable will depend on the time elapsed versus the price paid and the seriousness of the fault.

It is unfortunate that the seller in this case offered to buy the horse back for a lower amount, unless it was made crystal clear in writing that the reduced amount was specifically reduced by x due to this amount of schooling needed to reinstate the previous value caused by the buyers practices etc, otherwise it looks strange as buyer could suggest that's all the horse was ever worth.

However the buyer has also done themselves few favours by selling on the horse, this makes it hard for the court to deal with the ownership issues: however it also mitigates their losses which would if they succeeded in the court case be taken off any award made to them.

The seller should take specialist equine legal advice, Eg via BHS or one of the equine solicitors who advertise in horse and hound: they will then need to choose whether to tough it out and call the buyers bluff or come to some arrangement with them.

 

[_GG_]

With a private sale the buyer will have to prove misrepresentation on a balance of probabilities. And buyers need to ask the right questions, as sellers are obliged only to answer the questions asked truthfully, not to volunteer info, Unless there is evidence of misrepresentation, and the seller comes across reasonably, the buyer is likely to lose. After all, there is a reason that it is more expensive to buy from a reputable dealer thana private seller, you are paying for the extra legal rights you gain when doing do.

If the seller is (openly or not) a dealer, which is normally defined as someone selling more than 3 horses a year in trading standards eyes, then the horse must be fit for purpose and the buyer has a reasonable period in which to return the horse and be refunded. However like a used car, while the legal limit for bringing a claim is 6 years, for a used horse or used car the limit that will be deemed reasonable will depend on the time elapsed versus the price paid and the seriousness of the fault.

It is unfortunate that the seller in this case offered to buy the horse back for a lower amount, unless it was made crystal clear in writing that the reduced amount was specifically reduced by x due to this amount of schooling needed to reinstate the previous value caused by the buyers practices etc, otherwise it looks strange as buyer could suggest that's all the horse was ever worth.

However the buyer has also done themselves few favours by selling on the horse, this makes it hard for the court to deal with the ownership issues: however it also mitigates their losses which would if they succeeded in the court case be taken off any award made to them.

The seller should take specialist equine legal advice, Eg via BHS or one of the equine solicitors who advertise in horse and hound: they will then need to choose whether to tough it out and call the buyers bluff or come to some arrangement with them.

Brilliant post

 

[lhamm]

It was made crystal clear the offer of £2500 was offered because of the current condition of the horse and the fact he was now dangerous to ride and would need re-training.

Also when the horse was first purchased , he was used in a riding school for lessons (he was on working livery), they have this in writing from the lady who bought him, so they challenged this and said 'he could not have been dangerous when first bought, because the riding school would never have risked using him for their clients'

 

[Black_Horse_White]

When I was taken to court it took 6 months to get there, and I had to take back the horse and give a full refund, the judge in my case did actually ask the claimant why she didn't sell the horse for whatever she could get and sue me for the short fall. I had legal advice off many different sources and was told I couldn't lose, I did!

 

[Dry Rot]

With a private sale the buyer will have to prove misrepresentation on a balance of probabilities. And buyers need to ask the right questions, as sellers are obliged only to answer the questions asked truthfully, not to volunteer info, Unless there is evidence of misrepresentation, and the seller comes across reasonably, the buyer is likely to lose. After all, there is a reason that it is more expensive to buy from a reputable dealer thana private seller, you are paying for the extra legal rights you gain when doing do.

If the seller is (openly or not) a dealer, which is normally defined as someone selling more than 3 horses a year in trading standards eyes, then the horse must be fit for purpose and the buyer has a reasonable period in which to return the horse and be refunded. However like a used car, while the legal limit for bringing a claim is 6 years, for a used horse or used car the limit that will be deemed reasonable will depend on the time elapsed versus the price paid and the seriousness of the fault.

It is unfortunate that the seller in this case offered to buy the horse back for a lower amount, unless it was made crystal clear in writing that the reduced amount was specifically reduced by x due to this amount of schooling needed to reinstate the previous value caused by the buyers practices etc, otherwise it looks strange as buyer could suggest that's all the horse was ever worth.

However the buyer has also done themselves few favours by selling on the horse, this makes it hard for the court to deal with the ownership issues: however it also mitigates their losses which would if they succeeded in the court case be taken off any award made to them.

The seller should take specialist equine legal advice, Eg via BHS or one of the equine solicitors who advertise in horse and hound: they will then need to choose whether to tough it out and call the buyers bluff or come to some arrangement with them.

This^^^. Good post.

I occasionally buy used farm machinery (yes, I know it is not the same thing!) and always attempt to cover myself by including a letter with the cheque stating, "I am buying on your assurance that the machine is in good working order and free from serious defects". I have used that several times to recover the cost of repairing a machine so it is "in good working order". Farmers tend to sell equipment when something goes wrong with it, so perhaps not so different to horses after all!

I've just sold a young horse and this thread is food for thought. I shall be wording the invoice very carefully!

 

[AmyMay]

Horse was used in a riding school??? Some can be notoriously difficult to place and work in in a private home.

Knew there had to be more to this story. The only looser is the horse.

 

[Goldenstar]

Horse was used in a riding school??? Some can be notoriously difficult to place and work in in a private home.

Knew there had to be more to this story. The only looser is the horse.

I read Ops post to say it was used in a riding school after it was sold to the new owner that's hardly the old owners fault .
I so agree with you poor poor horse.

 

[AmyMay]

I read Ops post to say it was used in a riding school after it was sold to the new owner that's hardly the old owners fault .
I so agree with you poor poor horse.

Ah, sorry - I totally misread that.

Apols OP.

 

[lamlyn2012]

Many insurance policies include legal protection which means you get free
legal advice, free legal representation and, if the case does go to court ,
everything that that entails is free too.
A solicitor nominated by the insurance
company will only progress the case
for you if it has reasonable chance of
success.
The buyer would also have been advised she should keep the horse whilst any case id ongoing. Misrepresentation is very hard to prove , and, ss I said before, the burden of proof lies with the buyer. She will have to prove that the horse did these things*whilst in previous ownership and that the previous owner was aware and deliberately misrepresented the horse. If the problem is something which was not put in an ad or the buyer did not ask about specifically and was given an incorrect answer the buyer can not claim misrepresentation. *Also, as she no longer has the horse she will
not be able to produce proof.



I wonder if the buyer had already explored this possibility and reached a negative and that is why she has parted with the horse. If she was bringing a case to court she would have been advised to retain ownership.isMisrepresentation is very difficult to prove