Horse bought from dealer.......

WeeLassie said:
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...

But you did.

I hope that if you don't have enough connection with the horse to want to prevent him being passed from pillar to post in future, that you have enough concern for the next person whose heart/bank balance he is going to break, and the person after that, until someone does the right thing and puts him down.
 
ycbm said:
But you did.

I hope that if you don't have enough connection with the horse to want to prevent him being passed from pillar to post in future, that you have enough concern for the next person whose heart/bank balance he is going to break, and the person after that, until someone does the right thing and puts him down.
Click to expand...

That is VERY unfair to make people feel guilty like that. Horses are returned to sellers for behaviour/soundness problems all the time. If they werent returned, the seller/dealer has made his money and got his reward.
And no one should be rewarded for being dishonest.If they are it makes the problem of 'dodgy dealers' worse.
 
Well I take a rather different view but I'm not lawyer. Anyone, experienced or not is entitled to a refund if what they buy is not fit for purpose and in my view, this horse is not fit for what he was bought for. If he went lame with an arthritic condition once he had been brought into proper work then clearly he was not fit for purpose.It doesn't matter if the op was foolish, failed to get a vetting or ignored something that indicated a problem, the dealer sold her a blemish free horse suitable for hunting etc and the horse is not that. I find it quite sad that on the forum we choose to put the blame on the victim of a dishonest dealer rather than support her. Dealers like this stay in business because they get away with it and this is not the first time I've read posts telling purchasers who have been defrauded by dealers to put up and shut up. If you deal in horses as a business you are bound by the same laws as someone selling a vacuum cleaner or anything else for that matter.
 
oldie48 said:
Well I take a rather different view but I'm not lawyer. Anyone, experienced or not is entitled to a refund if what they buy is not fit for purpose and in my view, this horse is not fit for what he was bought for. If he went lame with an arthritic condition once he had been brought into proper work then clearly he was not fit for purpose.It doesn't matter if the op was foolish, failed to get a vetting or ignored something that indicated a problem, the dealer sold her a blemish free horse suitable for hunting etc and the horse is not that. I find it quite sad that on the forum we choose to put the blame on the victim of a dishonest dealer rather than support her. Dealers like this stay in business because they get away with it and this is not the first time I've read posts telling purchasers who have been defrauded by dealers to put up and shut up. If you deal in horses as a business you are bound by the same laws as someone selling a vacuum cleaner or anything else for that matter.
Click to expand...

Thank you for putting that so well.
 
oldie48 said:
I find it quite sad that on the forum we choose to put the blame on the victim of a dishonest dealer rather than support her.
Click to expand...

I absolutely take your point, but actually you'll find that in the majority of cases like this the 'victim' is supported 100% on the forum.

In this case though I find it difficult to offer that support. Sorry. The OP saw the lump on the knee. Questioned the lump on the knee. Discounted the lump on the knee. Her experience led her to the conclusion that it wasn't of any significance. That same experience made her conclude that she needed no other input in to the purchase (professional or otherwise). She states clearly that the horse was everything she wanted - lump and all. Now apparently the horse is fit only for destruction as it was possibly lame when she bought it and the lump is an issue because the vendor advertised the horse as being clean limbed (despite purchaser noting the lump as above).

Sometimes you've just got to take responsibility as a purchaser for the mistakes you make - no matter how expensive.
 
Amymay - i completely see what you mean, but the dealer also advertised the horse has blemish free and dismissed the comment made by the buyer when the lump was noticed. Surely that's dishonest?
 
I am with Amymay if I make a bad choice I deal with either with care or PTS .
Once I pay for a horse that's it down to me whatever happens .
Poor boy four years old and his life ruined so so sad.
I hope Epona gives him a soft landing .
 
Flyermc said:
Amymay - i completely see what you mean, but the dealer also advertised the horse has blemish free and dismissed the comment made by the buyer when the lump was noticed. Surely that's dishonest?
Click to expand...

It may have been advertised as blemish free but the op chose to purchase with that blemish after discussion with the vendor. She can't have it both ways.
 
amymay said:
I absolutely take your point, but actually you'll find that in the majority of cases like this the 'victim' is supported 100% on the forum.

In this case though I find it difficult to offer that support. Sorry. The OP saw the lump on the knee. Questioned the lump on the knee. Discounted the lump on the knee. Her experience led her to the conclusion that it wasn't of any significance. That same experience made her conclude that she needed no other input in to the purchase (professional or otherwise). She states clearly that the horse was everything she wanted - lump and all. Now apparently the horse is fit only for destruction as it was possibly lame when she bought it and the lump is an issue because the vendor advertised the horse as being clean limbed (despite purchaser noting the lump as above).

Sometimes you've just got to take responsibility as a purchaser for the mistakes you make - no matter how expensive.
Click to expand...

If you buy from a dealer you are entitled to be sold something fit for purpose and she hasn't been. I think it's pretty clear cut. In some respects the lump is of little significance, three weeks into ownership the horse is lame with arthritis and is not fit for purpose. It's clearly a pre-existing condition and if the dealer didn't know about it, he should have because it's his business.
 
stormox said:
That is VERY unfair to make people feel guilty like that. Horses are returned to sellers for behaviour/soundness problems all the time. If they werent returned, the seller/dealer has made his money and got his reward.
And no one should be rewarded for being dishonest.If they are it makes the problem of 'dodgy dealers' worse.
Click to expand...

OP had previously posted that she would PTS rather than have the horse passed the horse on to other people. In the context of that, my post was perfectly fair.

There is also no evidence that this was a dodgy dealer. He quite possibly sold a sound horse and had no idea it would go lame, he's known the buyer twenty years, it wouldn't be common to sell someone you've known that long a horse you know is not sound.

I am with Goldenstar. I buy a horse, it's my responsibility to safeguard that horse's future. I would be sending one solicitors letter to the seller but if he fights giving a refund or won't guarantee to have the horse PTS, I'd organise it myself.

The OP has already indicated that she can afford to do this, but appears to have changed her mind about whether she is going to.
 
Last edited:
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??
 
stormox said:
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??
Click to expand...

I don't care what others do that's up to them .
My horses that's up to me .
 
stormox said:
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??
Click to expand...

Personally, no of course not.

But buyers have a responsibility too. It's actually not too difficult to buy a horse that does what it says on the tin if you apply a little common sense....
 
amymay said:
But buyers have a responsibility too. It's actually not too difficult to buy a horse that does what it says on the tin if you apply a little common sense....
Click to expand...

Looking at the 'dodgy dealer'pages on FB,it seems there are plenty bought that dont do what it says on the tin!!
 
stormox said:
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??
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself. For the sake of other people who might buy the horse, and the horse itself, if i was not certain that the horse would be PTS I would suck it up and put the horse down.

What other people do is up to them, and I understand why people want their money back. But as a future buyer I thank every other buyer who takes a heartbreaker/savings-eater horse off the market.
 
ycbm said:
What other people do is up to them, and I understand why people want their money back. But as a future buyer I thank every other buyer who takes a heartbreaker/savings-eater horse off the market.
Click to expand...

Its not the buyer losing the money I have a problem with, its that the dealer keeps it!! And that is why these dodgy dealers have holidays in the sun and drive big cars.
 
Having read all of this thread, then gone back and read the first post, the vet stated that it had arthritis. On what was that based? Nowhere does it say this horse was xrayed. For all you saying PTS, unless there are definitive xrays, this could be treatable. On the other hand, I bought a 3 yr old TB, that had passed a vetting at a big NH sale. As soon as I started to break him in, it was obvious that he had lower ringbone. I learn't a lesson about not buying from somewhere with a rubber trot up pad. It can hide a multitude of things....Have to say that if the OP had kept the horse for a month before it went lame, then I don't see that the dealer should take it back. Anything could have happened in the new home.
 
Ive read the whole thread as well and to be honest what stands out to me is even though there is plenty on this thread about dialogue about this that and the other. Why oh why OP have you not been through it all with a dealer you have known 20yrs or am I missing something. They are the only person that can really put it right.

To be totally blunt a cheap young horse should ring a few alarm bells upfront and to be honest for an experienced horse person why were the basics completely missed out . I never see a horse ridden until it has trotted up sound on a hard surface in straight lines and lunged on a circle. Why pay a vet hundreds to tell you the obvious !

Please people do not label the dealer dishonest as there is no proof they knew about the problem and if they did would they really sell it to somebody they know so well.
 
Last edited:
WeeLassie said:
No, but the vet said the arthritis wouldnt have shown upin a normal vetting anyway unless I had had x rays.
Click to expand...

cundlegreen said:
Having read all of this thread, then gone back and read the first post, the vet stated that it had arthritis. On what was that based? Nowhere does it say this horse was xrayed. For all you saying PTS, unless there are definitive xrays, this could be treatable..
Click to expand...

I took this post to mean that the vet had x rayed? Weelassie, can you clarify?
 
WeeLassie said:
Yes I took him to the vets (After he was obviously lame when cantered, Id had him 3 weeks) and said there were arthritic changes in the joint.
Click to expand...

Are you going to have the horse PTS now? IMO that's the easiest and most humane thing to do. The horse isn't good for you, he won't be good to anyone else, and the seller is likely not going to take him back without a fight (and honestly I wouldn't blame him).
 
ycbm said:
OP had previously posted that she would PTS rather than have the horse passed the horse on to other people. In the context of that, my post was perfectly fair.

There is also no evidence that this was a dodgy dealer. He quite possibly sold a sound horse and had no idea it would go lame, he's known the buyer twenty years, it wouldn't be common to sell someone you've known that long a horse you know is not sound.

The OP has already indicated that she can afford to do this, but appears to have changed her mind about whether she is going to.
Click to expand...

I agree I havent been consistant in saying what Id do, the truth is, I dont know. At first I was upset that this gentle,kind sweet horse who whinnied to see me each morning was unsound, and wanted to do what was best for him. Then it turned to anger against the dealer, a person I knew on the local horsey scene for years, who had been untruthful (whether he knew or not) about the lump. But as a person who sets himself up as an 'expert' he should have looked the horse over carefully before writing the advert. Yes, I am fairly experienced, I should have mentioned it but I would not have had the quantity of horses he has had through his hands. He only had this horse a few days. I was angry that I felt conned, and didn't see why he should get away with it and keep my money.I was also annoyed he hadnt answered my messages, not even to say 'good luck, let me know how you get on' when I said I was going to take him to the vets.

I will let you all know what happens in a few days when Ive had a chance to think, but for the sake of any more unsound horses he might have in the future I think I will try and get him to refund my money and take the horse back.
 
Last edited:
OP - Firstly, what an awful situation.

Secondly, hindsight is a great thing, even the best, most experienced can be duped. However, it sounds like perhaps the dealer has been duped too. It took 3 weeks for the lameness to show with you and he only had the horse a few days.

Either way, speak to BHS Gold or an equine solicitor. Find out where you stand from someone who knows the law and isn't emotionally involved.

My last mare was bought with a full 5 stage vet. Infact the vet liked her so much he said if we decided not to buy her he would for his teenage daughter coming off ponies. This vet had horses and competition ponies. Only decent horse vet on the island. First viewing I went on my own, 2nd viewing I went with a very experienced and blunt friend who rode and loved her.

After 3 years of behaviour problems from the onset (firstly put down to her being young), napping, bucking, cold backed, stiffness behind, rodeo displays, being told I was paranoid it was just stiffness because she had been raced at 2 etc. I moved off the Island (no real choice in vets) to Cumbria where a new vet found the slipped disc in her spine instantly.

She had an old shoulder injury that I was aware of and was present at vetting - I was informed that with correct work this would not stop her from being a low level RC type which is what I wanted and she passed the vetting as just that - suitable for RC activities, jumping, flatwork, hacking.

New vet reconed that she had probably done it at the same time as the shoulder as the injury to her shoulder was large so probably the same incident. (It takes a pretty big force to slip a disc in a horses spine) We talked back through her behaviour and he was almost certain that the disc had been present at time of vetting 3 years previously (although we can't travel back in time and be 100% sure, but looking back on her behaviour I agree with him).

Ultimately she was PTS as a healthy looking 7 year old. Insurance wouldn't pay out for LOU or death.

I suppose my point is that yes vettings have their place, but they don't always protect you.
 
Sorry you are in this situation, but if the dealer only had the horse a few days and he took 3 weeks to go lame then it seems to me the dealer wouldn't necessarily know he was unsound.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top