Horse bought from dealer.......

DabDab said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you bought a kettle with plastic broken off and a month later it stopped working because of an electrical fault then you could return it though as the cause of it no longer working is unrelated to the cosmetic damage. The op has said she was willing to keep the horse even with the lump so the question is whether the lump is the cause/symptom of the lameness. If it is then it's probably a case that the horse was bought even though the buyer was aware of 'damage' but if the cause is something unrelated to the lump then it's a different matter and the op may have a case.
 
ycbm said:
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.
Click to expand...

Would the fact that the lump shows in the advert not actually re-enforce the fact I bought the horse knowing there was a lump? You do have to enlarge the advert to see it though.
 
Spiritedly said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes I agree - I think that would probably be the best line of argument. Ignore the lump, the horse has arthritis (not related to lump) and try to return on that basis....though if it were me I still think I'd just write it off as my mistake
OP - never mind, we all make mistakes and become blinded sometimes. I've bought several horses with defects that I decided were cosmetic, and it hasn't yet bitten me but every one was a gamble (all were declared by the seller though).
 
Spiritedly said:
If you bought a kettle with plastic broken off and a month later it stopped working because of an electrical fault then you could return it though as the cause of it no longer working is unrelated to the cosmetic damage. The op has said she was willing to keep the horse even with the lump so the question is whether the lump is the cause/symptom of the lameness. If it is then it's probably a case that the horse was bought even though the buyer was aware of 'damage' but if the cause is something unrelated to the lump then it's a different matter and the op may have a case.
Click to expand...

Hehe, cross posted....yes I think we agree
 
Spiritedly said:
If you bought a kettle with plastic broken off and a month later it stopped working because of an electrical fault then you could return it though as the cause of it no longer working is unrelated to the cosmetic damage. The op has said she was willing to keep the horse even with the lump so the question is whether the lump is the cause/symptom of the lameness. If it is then it's probably a case that the horse was bought even though the buyer was aware of 'damage' but if the cause is something unrelated to the lump then it's a different matter and the op may have a case.
Click to expand...

Hehe, cross posted, yes I think we agree
 
WeeLassie said:
Would the fact that the lump shows in the advert not actually re-enforce the fact I bought the horse knowing there was a lump? You do have to enlarge the advert to see it though.
Click to expand...

It also reinforces your claim that the dealer lied about the horse being clean limbed. What has your vet said about the lump and it's relation to the arthritis?
 
Sugar_and_Spice said:
It also reinforces your claim that the dealer lied about the horse being clean limbed. What has your vet said about the lump and it's relation to the arthritis?
Click to expand...

Basically he said that the lump was a symptom of the arthritis, but there was arthritis elsewhere in the knee, and probably in other joints too, although it could be limited to the knee if caused by trauma.
 
WL if you do a search you will be able to find the list of equine solicitors that Peter Natt posts, unless you are a bhs gold member?
 
So if you had those other suspected joints investigated and there was arthritis, would that prove a pre-existing condition? Depends too if the horse was expensive enough that a bit spent on investigation, enabling you to hopefully get your money back from the dealer, is worth it.
 
ester said:
WL if you do a search you will be able to find the list of equine solicitors that Peter Natt posts, unless you are a bhs gold member?
Click to expand...

Yes, BHS gold member. I will ring them. But I consider myself really silly not having checked the horse over properly or queried things. I think its entirely my problem, and I have to deal with the consequences.
 
Sugar_and_Spice said:
So if you had those other suspected joints investigated and there was arthritis, would that prove a pre-existing condition? Depends too if the horse was expensive enough that a bit spent on investigation, enabling you to hopefully get your money back from the dealer, is worth it.
Click to expand...

It would cost more than the horse cost, so not worth it. And if the horse went back to the dealer, what would happen to him? He is the sweetest kindest chap. PTS is kinder than being passed around.
 
WeeLassie said:
Would the fact that the lump shows in the advert not actually re-enforce the fact I bought the horse knowing there was a lump? You do have to enlarge the advert to see it though.
Click to expand...


Yes, but most horses have lumps, and as it's on the photo he can't claim that it was a new lump which has caused new lameness. The lump is now an irrelevance, imo. The question is whether the horse was fot for purpose, and he wasn't. Lame at three weeks, on record, I think you have a very good case.
 
WeeLassie said:
It would cost more than the horse cost, so not worth it. And if the horse went back to the dealer, what would happen to him? He is the sweetest kindest chap. PTS is kinder than being passed around.
Click to expand...

If you can afford it, I would PTS for the sake of the horse. Definitely the kindest thing to do for him, unfortunately.
 
WeeLassie said:
Yes, BHS gold member. I will ring them. But I consider myself really silly not having checked the horse over properly or queried things. I think its entirely my problem, and I have to deal with the consequences.
Click to expand...

You are obviously a very level headed, and probably seriously nice, person!
 
amymay said:
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.
Click to expand...

Me too. Why did you buy the horse and take his word that it was clean-limbed when the lump was literally right in front of you? Also, why are you thinking it's arthritis? At this point it could be anything. Is it bilaterally lame or just lame on the leg with the blemish?

The horse was sold as seen and you made an informed decision to buy it knowing there was 'something'. As far as the dealer is concerned, he sold you a sound horse, and it's gone lame in your care.
 
Last edited:
A vetting would of picked up on the lump even if they didn't know it was arthritis. Put this one down to bad experience and learn from it that's what I would do.
 
SpringArising said:
Me too. Why did you buy the horse and take his word that it was clean-limbed when the lump was literally right in front of you? Also, why are you thinking it's arthritis? At this point it could be anything. Is it bilaterally lame or just lame on the leg with the blemish?

The horse was sold as seen and you made an informed decision to buy it knowing there was 'something'. As far as the dealer is concerned, he sold you a sound horse, and it's gone lame in your care.
Click to expand...

I think it was arthritis because I have taken the horse toa vet and he says it is.

The horse wasnt 'sold as seen' he was sold as sound, fit for purpose and the advert explicitly said 'no lumps bumps or blemishes.
Why did I buy a horse with a lump? I saw it and said to dealer ' Is there anything I should know about this horse? Has he any lumps or other problems' and he said 'no,he hasnt'. So I assumed it was nothing, just a cosmetic blemish. I didnt even say I'd seen it till the next day.

I know I was stupid. 'Love on the rebound' maybe. I had just had a much loved horse put down age 7, was desperate to get another and fell in love........
 
WeeLassie said:
I think it was arthritis because I have taken the horse toa vet and he says it is.

The horse wasnt 'sold as seen' he was sold as sound, fit for purpose
Click to expand...

The horse was sold as seen. You saw the horse and decided to buy him as he was - lump and all.

And the horse was sound when you bought it and fit for purpose at the time of sale. And as someone else said, how could the seller have known what was to come in the future?

This is bad luck that you can chalk up to experience. It's rubbish that it hasn't worked out but I think that you were a bit blasé maybe. What did the vet say re. the correlation of arthritis and the lump? Are they even related?
 
WeeLassie, please go and see a specialist solicitor armed with all the information you have before you make any decisions. From what I can see, most of the opinion on this thread is just that - opinion. You need to talk to someone who is suitably qualified.
 
SpringArising said:
The horse was sold as seen. You saw the horse and decided to buy him as he was - lump and all.

And the horse was sound when you bought it and fit for purpose at the time of sale. And as someone else said, how could the seller have known what was to come in the future?
Click to expand...
The thing is, I am not sure the horse was sound at point of sale. The lump was there, vet says it is part of the arthritic changes, and as the horse didnt show any obvious lameness until it was cantered on a tight circle, which I didnt do until I'd had him 3 weeks, it is possible he wasnt sound then.
But I have downloaded the videos off the advert, and am going to show them to the vet. It maybe he WAS lame then, but very slight,more like a shortening of the stride than lame.
 
You're not sure he was sound - yet still bought him? And your still possibly going to pursue the seller?

I'm a bit 😲 to be honest.
 
I think WL only meant from the POV that she isn't a vet, it might have been subtle, hence her getting the vet to check out the sale vids.

I am confused by those who think sold as seen applies someway in law? It doesn't for inanimate objects, or horses.

OP has admitted she was foolish but she also purchased from a dealer who must, legally ensure they are selling goods fit for purpose so the onus is not totally on her.
 
ester said:
I think WL only meant from the POV that she isn't a vet, it might have been subtle, hence her getting the vet to check out the sale vids.
Click to expand...

But claims to be experienced enough to not need a vetting done on a horse she wishes to purchase. Presumably because she could spot the subtleties of mild lameness (or anything else) should it be present.
 
People please please take off your rose tinted specs when viewing horses take the most experianced dispassionate horsey friend you have with you in case you get overexcited .
Don't hope for the best and ignore things and no body is too experianced to bypass vetting unless your happy to take what ever fate throws at you .
As always I feel heartily sorry for the poor horse .
 
Hindsight is always a wonderful thing but your post suggested she thought he was lame at the time and went ahead with purchase, which really would be nuts in the extreme :p. I was just saying I don't think that was what was meant.

I think I am ok enough at spotting lameness, I don't and wouldn't expect to spot the subtleties that my vet does and I'd expect most experienced horse owners to be the same. Frankly there is also a reason my vet bought his biomechanic kit, because he (with a special interest in vettings) doesn't always spot them easily either...
 
ester said:
Hindsight is always a wonderful thing but your post suggested she thought he was lame at the time and went ahead with purchase, which really would be nuts in the extreme :p. I was just saying I don't think that was what was meant.

I think I am ok enough at spotting lameness, I don't and wouldn't expect to spot the subtleties that my vet does and I'd expect most experienced horse owners to be the same. Frankly there is also a reason my vet bought his biomechanic kit, because he (with a special interest in vettings) doesn't always spot them easily either...
Click to expand...

No, I didnt think he was lame when I bought him, nor from looking at the videos. The videos are round a sand arena in trot, not straight in line up and down. I only said I was going to get the vet to look at them, in case he sees anything I hadnt. If the horse goes back to the dealer, he will be no worse off than if I hadnt been daft and bought him in the first place.
 
WeeLassie said:
No, I didnt think he was lame when I bought him, nor from looking at the videos. The videos are round a sand arena in trot, not straight in line up and down. I only said I was going to get the vet to look at them, in case he sees anything I hadnt. If the horse goes back to the dealer, he will be no worse off than if I hadnt been daft and bought him in the first place.
Click to expand...

You intimated further up that you thought he may have been.
 
amymay said:
You intimated further up that you thought he may have been.
Click to expand...

I didnt say "I thought he may have been"....... I said "He may have been".......... and I, afterhaving him 3 weeks and finding out he wasnt sound, then going to the vet and hearing about the arthritis, subsequently downloaded the videos and am going to show them to the vet and see what he thinks.

I do not know if I would have more, or less of a chance with the dealer if the vet thinks he showed lame before I bought him
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top