Horse bought from dealer.......

[WeeLassie]

Went to see a horse at a dealers. Liked him, but it looked like he had a lump on his knee. Asked dealer ' you said there are no blemishes or bumps' in the advert- he said no, hes clean legged. So I thought I must be mistaken. I trusted the chap. The day I got him home I phoned dealer and left message saying 'theres definately a lump on this horses knee.' No word from dealer. Rode the horse gently- walk and trot- for 3 weeks as I knew he wasnt fit and was young. He seemed fine. Not lame, soI thought it was a cosmetic blemish. After a month I started cantering - horse was immediately lame. And after a canter he trotted lame too.
I messaged dealer to say the horse was lame,no reply. I took the horse to a vet today, seems he has arthritis.
Could I ask dealer if he would take the horse back? Is he likely too? What if he offers me a swap? would I have to accept that? He knew I wanted the horse for hunting,jumping etc.
Thanks for reading.

 

[asterope]

Did you have the horse vetted?

 

[WeeLassie]

No, but the vet said the arthritis wouldnt have shown upin a normal vetting anyway unless I had had x rays.

 

[Dave's Mam]

I'd have challenged the dealer while you were there, in front of the horse. "What's that lump on his knee?"

 

[WeeLassie]

I know, thinking back, I should have done. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The horse was so exactly what I was looking for I suppose I heard and saw what I wanted, and was blind to the reality!

 

[eggs]

It doesn't sound as though you got the horse vetted. If you had you could have asked the vet to investigate the 'lump' on the horse's knee. Do you have a written receipt from the dealer to say that the horse is clean limbed?

 

[WeeLassie]

I have the original advert that says no blemishes.

 

[The Fuzzy Furry]

Trading standards, return horse as not fit for purpose under the sales of goods act.
Tell dealer you are returning on x day and you require reimbursement.

 

[alainax]

Your issue with the right to return within 30 days is you noticed the "fault" prior to purchase and chose to purchase anyway.

If you choose to peruse it the first instance will be to write a letter to the dealer quoting consumer rights act 2015 and your right to return for a refund. Check out th citizens advice websites for templates.

Was it a well known central Scotland dealer?

 

[AmyMay]

I know, thinking back, I should have done. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
The horse was so exactly what I was looking for I suppose I heard and saw what I wanted, and was blind to the reality!

There you have it. There's no misrepresentation. You also saw the lump and chose to continue with the purchase without the benefit of a vetting.

I'd be surprised if you had any come back.

 

[The Fuzzy Furry]

There you have it. There's no misrepresentation. You also saw the lump and chose to continue with the purchase without the benefit of a vetting.

I'd be surprised if you had any come back.

Oops, I missed that bit.

OP, I agree with amymay in that it's your problem as you accepted damaged horse.

 

[stormox]

There you have it. There's no misrepresentation. You also saw the lump and chose to continue with the purchase without the benefit of a vetting.
.

Surely there is misrepresentation if the advert says 'no blemishes' and there is one, whether OP saw it or not at the viewing?
And as FuzzyFurry says, the horse isnt fit for purpose.

 

[AmyMay]

Surely there is misrepresentation if the advert says 'no blemishes' and there is one, whether OP saw it or not at the viewing?
And as FuzzyFurry says, the horse isnt fit for purpose.

You could argue that, yes. But as the op still went ahead with the purchase having noted it themselves it could be argued that the 'misrepresentation' was accepted and not thought to be important enough to abandon the purchase.

 

[stormox]

The horse stil lisnt 'fit for purpose' though, if the dealer knew OP wanted it for hunting and jumping and it went lame after 3 weeks with a pre-existing condition. Is there any time limit for returning horses for this reason?

 

[AmyMay]

What proof is there that the dealer knew the horse was not fit for purpose?

 

[stormox]

What proof is there that the dealer knew the horse was not fit for purpose?

Does he have to know, though? You can return a kettle to a shop as 'not fit for purpose' even if the shop didn't know it wouldn't work when you bought it. And I was told the same law covered horses...

 

[DabDab]

What proof is there that the dealer knew the horse was not fit for purpose?

This exactly - the op didn't discuss the lump with the dealer, the dealer maintained that they believed the horse to be blemish free throughout the transaction. The only person who definitely knew of the presence of the lump was the OP.
OP - you have been rather silly in this purchase, probably best to write it off and learn from it. If you do want to pursue it then best to speak to a specialist solicitor before saying too much more on the internet as a lot will depend on what you and the dealer can be proven to have known/said

 

[AmyMay]

Does he have to know, though? You can return a kettle to a shop as 'not fit for purpose' even if the shop didn't know it wouldn't work when you bought it. And I was told the same law covered horses...

You may be right, I don't know.

As usual, the horse pays the bill. Why oh why don't inexperienced people take someone who knows what they're doing with them when buying a horse? And why don't they get it vetted? So many of these situations are completely avoidable.

 

[DabDab]

Does he have to know, though? You can return a kettle to a shop as 'not fit for purpose' even if the shop didn't know it wouldn't work when you bought it. And I was told the same law covered horses...

Yes, but would you buy a kettle you knew didn't work?
If you bought a kettle with a small piece of plastic broke off it that you admitted to knowing about at the time of purchase I'm not sure a shop would be keen to refund you when you decide a month later that you now no longer want it because of the same damage.

 

[ester]

Of course a lump would have come up in a vetting, maybe not a diagosis but further investigation ie an xray would have been advised if you still wanted to go ahead with the purchase.

did you view the horse before purchase? It is not clear because you say you saw the lump once he was home? If not I am wondering if you have some more protection under distance selling regs too.

 

[ycbm]

Sorry, I can't see how you can win this one either way. Either there was a lump and you saw the lump and you purchased the horse in spite of the lump ... or , more likely imo, the dealer will continue to insist that there was no lump when the horse was purchased and the lump is subsequent to the purchase, since you willingly purchased a horse described as free from blemishes after you had seen it, and have no proof whatsoever that the lump was there when you bought it.

I think your only option is to write the horse off and buy another, this time with a vetting, sorry.

 

[Sugar_and_Spice]

I'm not sure the issue is the lump though. The OP saw the lump, or thought they saw an abnormal lump, but on being told the horse was clean limbed believed they'd made a mistake (about the lump being abnormal, I mean knees do have a degree of lumpiness about them and if you don't know where the normal lumps of a joint are...). But at no point did the OP see arthritis, nor would the vet have seen arthritis (according to the OP). I'm a bit puzzled about a vetting not picking it up, maybe a 2 stage vetting wouldn't have and perhaps the OP couldn't have had a 5 stage even if they'd wanted to, because the horse wasn't in work?

So the way I see it, the OP didn't knowingly buy an arthritic horse. The dealer doesn't have to have known about the arthritis for the OP to get a refund. The dealer knew the purpose of buying a horse, they also said the horse was clean limbed when it's reasonable to expect they would have been aware that it wasn't. The law changed and I think there's now 6mths for the return of a horse with a problem that makes it unfit for purpose (business sales, not private), whether the dealer knew about the problem or not.

ETA: whether the lump was there or not, a vet has now investigated and says there's arthritis. I'm aware arthritis can occur following an injury, but is it possible that the arthritis in this horse has occurred in only 3wks since the purchase? If the vet says not, I think the OP has a case to return the horse for refund.

 

[[59668]]

You didn't canter the horse when you tried it. You didn't push the dealer re the lump. You didn't have the horse vetted. You bought as seen. Sorry but you have no come back.

 

[limestonelil]

So sorry for your horrible situation OP. I bought a vacuum cleaner (not top range but not a cheapo) which was not as advertised and got my money back after 4 months and found out eventually it was discontinued due to design fault! So maybe you could do not as described, unsuitable for purpose etc. So many differing opinions on here and just seen the post about the kettle! Hope it works out satisfactorily for you.

 

[ycbm]

I'm not sure the issue is the lump

I do think it might focus on the lump if it went to court. On the information we've got, weelassie has a right to return the horse. But in court, I think the conversation might go

- the horse was specifically advertised as clean limbed

- the buyer bought it with no record of it being other than clean limbed

- the horse now has a lump that was not there when it was sold

- the horse is now lame when it was not when it was sold or the buyer would not have bought it

- there are signs of arthritis on x ray that may have been pre existing, but there are plenty of horses doing the job that the buyer said she wanted who would show similar if they were x rayed so that does not necessarily make him unfit for purpose.

- conclusion, the horse has hurt itself since it was purchased and that has caused lameness.



Weelassie, in theory the law is completely on your side, but in court things often don't go as expected. Your best bet, I think, would be to have a solicitor send one letter to the dealer demanding a refund. But if you get no response, in your shoes I'd call it quits and learn from the experience.

What do you intend to do with the horse? With arthritis in a knee at a young age, I would be looking at the hard option, I'm afraid.

 

[WeeLassie]

You may be right, I don't know.

As usual, the horse pays the bill. Why oh why don't inexperienced people take someone who knows what they're doing with them when buying a horse? And why don't they get it vetted? So many of these situations are completely avoidable.

The unfortunate thing is I am experienced, and that was why I didnt get the horse vetted. I saw the lump when I viewed the horse, but said nothing, I had been looking so long (8 months) for a nice young horse of a certain breeding -this horse is 4- when one came up, I wanted him, had known the seller for over 20 years even though he's only been a dealer the last 3yrs, and unfortunately trusted him. The lump is visible on the advert photos too.Love is blind as they say!!
I know the answer,, the dealer hasnt replied to my messages, the first one less than 24 hours after I took the horse home, only thing to do is have the horse PTS and start looking again.
My own fault, you are all right. If someone else had taken me to look at that horse in an advisory capacity I would have said 'dont buy that'.

 

[Cahill]

the dealer would say the lump appeared after you bought it.

 

[WeeLassie]

the dealer would say the lump appeared after you bought it.

It shows in the advert.

 

[Spiritedly]

I would have thought the issue would be whether the lump was the cause of lameness or symptom of arthritis. If it is then the seller could argue that buyer was aware of this and still went ahead with the purchase, if however the lump is purely cosmetic, unrelated to the arthritis and wouldn't have shown on a vetting then surely the 'not fit for purpose' rule would apply?

 

[ycbm]

It shows in the advert.

Well that changes things a bit! It makes the lump irrelevant. It was there, there has been no accident since to cause it.

I think you need to consult a solicitor experienced in horse sales, and at the very least send the dealer a demand for your money back.