Horse bought from dealer.......

[popsdosh]

Surely whether the dealer told a lie or just didnt know, or whether he knew about the lump or not, or whether he knew the horse was lame or not, the buyer is still protected by the 'returning horse as not fit for purpose' law?

Most people are advised to let their new horse settle in for a few days. As this was a young horse, understandably the buyer didnt canter for 2-3 weeks. As soon as she did she saw the lameness and reported it.

There is no such' law' just comes under normal consumer law . If it had been reported within 30 days the dealer by law would have to take the goods back and refund without the need for a reason . This new law will eventually change horse dealing as we know it and most likely turn over to much power to the buyer as they will on any whim be able to return and be refunded After 30 days its gets more complicated as you then need a reason to return the goods for a refund which is where the sticking point may be.

 

[Pigeon]

And plenty of buyers who are clueless.

We've been got before (and several near misses) and I wouldn't say we're entirely clueless. You just can't believe how sneaky people are! Have been to see one on a cold day and owners were being meticulous about quartering it's rugs. Asked to see it without a rug and found out why - scars from KS op! Been to see others and have found out through the grapevine that it's had really bad COPD (ooh so that's why it was out when we arrived) or looked through Facebook and seen owner in a cast because it 'bucked her off for no reason' and is 'evil'. This was a pony for a child. The whole point of going to a dealer is because they supposedly know what they're doing. To use the earlier comparison, you shouldn't have to be an expert in vacuum cleaners to buy a functional vacuum cleaner....

 

[ycbm]

There is no such' law' just comes under normal consumer law . If it had been reported within 30 days the dealer by law would have to take the goods back and refund without the need for a reason . This new law will eventually change horse dealing as we know it and most likely turn over to much power to the buyer as they will on any whim be able to return and be refunded After 30 days its gets more complicated as you then need a reason to return the goods for a refund which is where the sticking point may be.

I know some very good low end, high turnover dealers who deal with this problem by leasing any horse for sale for a period first, and then dropping the price by the lease fee if the custumer decides to buy. The customer can do whatever they like with the horse in that time, and they don't own it, so they can return it even if they break it.

It seems like a very good model to me. Maybe we will see more of it?

Popsdosh, surely the right of return for any reason only applies if the article is in the same condition in which was sold? You can't just crock a horse and then send it back, any more than you can cut the sleeve off a jumper and return it. Can you?

In this case, the owner bought a sound horse and wants to return a lame one, so the thirty day rule would not help.

 

[indie1282]

Before the horse gets PTS has the vet actually x rayed this horse and performed a proper lameness work up?

Or are they just speculating that he may have arthritis? If you like the horse as much as you say OP wouldn't it be worth giving that a go before making any decisions? Understand if cost is an issue.

 

[YorksG]

If this is a four year old horse, how long has it been broken, how small were the small canter circles it showed up lame on? I would not buy a four year old with a "lump" on its knee. If I had made this mistake I would ensure that the horse was not put into a position of being sold on again.

 

[FestiveFuzz]

So, in general, not in this particular case, do people think that dodgy dealers shouldnt be made to take the horse back, and anyone who is mis-sold or buys a lame/unsound/ naughty horse should accept they were done,or made a mistake and have the horse PTS for the horses sake and the 'dodgy dealer'keep the money??

I think this is a massive grey area and essentially comes down to whether you truly believe/there's evidence to suggest that the seller knowingly mis-sold the horse.

Pops was bought from a highly regarded dressage rider/dealer. When she did her DDFT I'd owned her for exactly 33 days. Ultrasound scans showed mineralisation in both forelegs which would suggest prior damage/a pre-existing issue and was certainly very unusual for a 5yo that was as low maintenance as I was led to believe when I bought her. But the insurers were happy to pay for her treatment and there was absolutely no possible way I could prove that her seller deliberately mis-sold her, so I just wrote it off as incredibly bad luck.

I'd lost about £10k by the time she was PTS 8 months later, but sadly that's just the luck of the draw with horses sometimes. I honestly wouldn't have had it any other way though as I know I always did right by her and did everything I could to make her better and to me that's priceless.

In the case of the OP I struggle to understand how someone who lost a 7yo could then be so gung ho about their next purchase. I mean honestly who views a horse with a visible lump and then dismisses said lump because the seller said "nope the horse has no lumps or bumps, it's clean limbed"? Surely that's the moment you say "erm...so what about that lump on his knee then?". Adding to that the not vetting, it's just madness!