Have we been mis-sold this horse?

[stable-rug]

We recently purchased an eventing pony who went lame about 8 weeks after purchase, he hadn't done much with us, only a couple of events and after a bit of rest he seemed fine again, a couple of weeks later he went very lame and displayed a lot of fetlock swelling. Our vet scanned him and found he had Annular Ligament Syndrome affecting both hind fetlocks, and displaying thickening of the plantar supporting structures of the fetlocks. He concluded that this condition was present at the time of purchase, we slipped up by not having him vet inspected as we purchased him from a vet!
The vendors have washed their hands of the matter and do not accept our vet's conclusions.
This pony had done a lot of competing before they bought him, and he was only with them for a few months before he was sold to us.
We are now planning on getting an independent vet's opinion, but we are unsure as to where to go from there as the vendor has made it clear it's our misfortune.

 

[Greylegs]

I'm no expert, but I'd say you slipped up by not getting him vetted at time of purchase, regardless of buying him from a vet!

 

[swampdonkey]

These sorts of things are so difficult. Even if he did have the condition before you bought him the real question is did they know!!!
He stayed sound for you for 8 weeks so what is the likelihood that this is the 1st time it has affected him?

I'm not sure what happens if you go to small claims court but I would guess that because the vet owned him there will be no evidence of any veterinary treatment he had received while he was with the old owners.

Its unfortunate but my guess is that you won't be able to prove that they knew.

 

[Moomin1]

I'm sorry but I don't think you have a leg to stand on (excuse the pun). You bought privately, and didn't have the horse vetted. Harsh lesson to learn but I think you will have to accept and deal with it.

 

[Penny Less]

Unfortunately it is buyer beware. You did not get the pony vetted which may have shown up a problem. The vet who sold him to you may not have known there was a problem if the pony wasn't lame when they had him, vets have been known not to vet their own purchases !

 

[Goldenstar]

You did not have the horse vetted that was your choice now you have to live with it .

 

[Capriole]

Sorry to say, but I agree with the above. His lameness after 8 weeks of you owning him may be the very first time the lameness has presented itself and he's only 'broken' while with you.
Whether it was a preexisting condition or not. The previous owners may not have known about it, if no symptoms were shown previously there's no reason why they should. Alternatively they might have known if the horse had been lame before and they'd had it explored. You will probably never know now, whether a vetting would have revealed the problem or not. (Buying from a vet is no reason not to skip a vetting if you would have ordinarily have had one but it's too late to beat yourself up about that now).

 

[stable-rug]

Thanks for all the replies, it's been a very expensive lesson.

 

[niagaraduval]

I have to agree with the others on this, I think you won't have anything to stand on as you didn't get it vetted before purchase.

You also don't know for sure that it is an ongoing problem and the horse has had soundness problems in the past.

I would also put it down to experience and next time, get the horse vetted before purchase (I learnt the hard way too).

 

[sheep]

It is unfortunate, but not much you can do. Is it possible that the pony is only now showing signs of the problem? Perhaps the vet who owned him previously didn't do very much, so the problem never presented itself? Also, unless the vet has much equine knowledge, perhaps they didn't have a clue. It is a sad scenario but not unheard of!

 

[siennamum]

Whilst I agree with all the above I would be concerned that the previous owner didn't own the horse for long and curious to understand whether in any way the vet convinced you a vetting wasn't necessary. It won't make much difference probably, but it still might be worth speaking to an equine solicitor to double check.

 

[AmyMay]

You did not have the horse vetted that was your choice now you have to live with it .

I'm afraid I agree.

 

[sheep]

Whilst I agree with all the above I would be concerned that the previous owner didn't own the horse for long and curious to understand whether in any way the vet convinced you a vetting wasn't necessary. It won't make much difference probably, but it still might be worth speaking to an equine solicitor to double check.

depends, did the vendor 'convince' them it wasn't necessary or did OP just take a chance?

 

[siennamum]

depends, did the vendor 'convince' them it wasn't necessary or did OP just take a chance?

I agree, I'm speculating really. I think the vet/seller should have encouraged the buyer to have an impartial vetting. It looks pretty unprofessional otherwise and there is the risk of precisely this set of events.