Horse purchase legal query

Weezy

Weezy

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 November 2003
Messages
39,872
Location
The Sodden Cotswolds
Visit site
OK...

*J* bought a horse. She went to see the horse twice, asked all of the relevant questions, was told horse was sound, vice free, and although slightly underweight it was because the owner didn't know much.

Horse arrives on yard. It becomes apparent almost immediately that this horse is a CRONIC weaver. It does not just weave it's head, it weaves it's whole body, going over two walls, round corners, etc. It is pretty apparent that the horse is under weight because it never stops bloody moving.

J calls the vendor and says she wants to return the horse as it is certainly carrying a vice and therefore was misrepresented. She said she was happy to take it all the way to court and the vendor indeed said "see you in court". However, they are calling back after their holiday to discuss.

So...nothing in writing saying horse is vice free, but it is evident that the horse has carried this vice for YEARS - it is nothing new. Are we all right in thinking that J has the law on HER side?
 
Did she not see it weaving when she went to view?Maybe it is just worried because of new home.I hope it starts to relax and turns out not to effect it and the old owner gives her some money back.
I am sure you are suppose to declare it but it is proving it! They will probably say they told her
 
actually yes it depends on the a few things but alot of the time we are all covered under the sales of goods acts that horses oddley enough fall into, so yes if she went to court shed have a case and proberley win, especially if it could be proven the horse had repercussions of the weaving... ie it wasnt tsomething that had started at new home....
 
It's proving when the horse started weaving that is the problem. Obviously it has for years, but you have to convince the magistrate of that if you go to the small claims court.

However, a HUGE plus point here is that my friend was taken to court because she sold a horse as "hacks out alone or in company". New owner said horse didn't hack out alone.

They took my friend to court and won. Judge wasn't interested in whether the horse had hacked alone in the two years my friend had owned her, just in what the new owner was saying....without even having to show any evidence that said horse didn't hack out alone.

The day we collected horse, they wouldn't let us take a trailer on their yard. Very narrow lane and they knew the horse wasn't the easiest of loaders. My friend just got her hubby to drop her off at the yard, tacked up the horse on the end of the drive (they wouldn't let us go up the drive!) and hacked her away...ALONE!

Horse hadn't been ridden for 6 months at all either. Just goes to show the law is an ass. The judge told my friend, openly in court, that when there are two conflicting sides to a hearing, he prefers and always does side with the plaintiff! Basically, my friend had no chance of winning from day one.

Get a vet out to assess horse and give a report on it's weaving. Use this when you file the papers at the court. If the advert or receipt says the horse is sound and vice free, then you will have a claim for misrepresentation, but only if that's the case.

If they don't mention vices, it's hard to prove they never told you about it.
 
Unless she has a reciept stating that the horse is warrented vice free, then she doesn't stand a chance. The seller could simply say, 'it never weaved with us, prove it did.' If it went to court she would have little sucess. It is unlikely she would win even with a reciept, and the chances of getting any money from the seller are nill. She would then have to prove the horse was worth less than she paid because it weaves.
 
[ QUOTE ]
It would depend if J has a reciept for the amount paid and stating that the horse has no vices and signed by the seller.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that it necessarily would.
confused.gif
That would be a bonus, but not what the case would rest upon. A contract and contractual obligations do NOT have to be in writing.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Not a chance I'm afraid. Caveat Emptor and all that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't work like that, it really doesn't.

I sat in on my friend's court case and it was pathetic. The judge clearly sided with the plaintiff, and awarded the case in their favour based on something they hadn't even complained about when it came to court!

They were complaining about the horse not liking lorries and tractors, which she was clearly told about in the sales adverts. Everyone said my friend should win her case as she'd done nothing wrong.

Sadly she lost and it was because the advert said "hacks alone" and new owners were saying they couldn't ride her because she was scared of tractors/lorries....hence she wasn't capable of hacking alone!

Utter rubbish. As I said in other reply, my friend collected the pony after the case by hacking her away alone from their yard.

You don't have the same cover if you buy privately, but you certainly do get some sympathy from the judge.

Basically they would expect the seller to take the horse back from the new owner if it was "perfect" because surely it wouldn't be hard to sell again if it's as good as you say.
 
QR: As clearly stated in my OP, there is nothing in writing re: vices. There ARE witnesses to J asking if the horse had vices and the answer being "no". I have not seen the advert so cannot comment on what it said.

No horse would ever weave as this one does over night. We have big barn spaces and not 12x12s so the horse isn't feeling enclosed or worried. He is very sweet and shows absolutely no sign of being distressed, it is simply a very old, long in the tooth, vice he has developed over the years. J has written to the 4 people in the passport to ask for info regarding him and if he ever weaved with them.

No, the horse would NOT have been purchased had J had any knowledge regarding the weaving.

Patches, your friends case came into my mind today as we were discussing it - that as a real *law is an arse* case
mad.gif



Oh, and forgot to add, when the owner and vendor were challenged on the phone regarding the weaving, they didn't deny it straight out, and they did agree that they had sold the horse as vice free. It is a real *your word against mine* case unfortunately.
 
Weezy....just a thought....how old is horse? If it's not young, then maybe there would be wear and tear showing in joints from the weaving that would be evident on x-ray etc to support the claim?
 
Did the old owner understand about weaving and how it effects a horse.If they were novices they could say they did not know.How long had they owned the horse and why were they selling it.
I have known weavers to be good horses in every other way but I have known others that often got colic!
 
This is why you need to have an independent person assess the horse...maybe an osteo who could see signs of tension from the weaving, a vet or even an animal behaviourist? Actually get as many reports as you can and the witnesses can make witness statements too and even attend a small claims court hearing to give evidence to the Judge.

My friend didn't take an expert witnesses to court as everyone, even her solicitor, said the the case was cut and dry and the new owner didn't stand a chance of winning.

If she could go back and fight the case again, she would have tackled it differently. To appeal costs an arm and a leg, well almost £800 I think so the system is certainly not set up to assist those who lose cases....given that it only cost the new owner £220 to bring the case against my friend.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Did the old owner understand about weaving and how it effects a horse.If they were novices they could say they did not know.How long had they owned the horse and why were they selling it.
I have known weavers to be good horses in every other way but I have known others that often got colic!

[/ QUOTE ]

I always thought that ignorance can be no excuse in the eyes of the law?
 
from what I remember though Vices HAVE to be declared so as long as it can be proven (expert vet opinion) that the horse weaved prior to purchase then J would have the law on my side. I think a call to a specialise equine lawyer would be a suitable step forward her. Unfortunately Equine law wasn't an optional module at uni (oh did I try to get it added!
tongue.gif
) but there is definitely something ringing bells because equine 'vices' are considered defects and must be declared at the time of purchase and do not fall under the 'buyer beware' aspect of private sales.
 
Dammit - just wrote a LONG answer to you Carthorse and puter went doolally again
mad.gif


Anyway, owner is novice, girl selling him is not. The horse even does it in the field. It is deffo not a case of ignorance and the horse is underweight and muscle from nothing less than the weaving IMHO. I have suggested she gives him some Coligone to see if it helps for now.

KATYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY thank you - that was exactly what YO and I thought too, that vices HAVE to be disclosed
grin.gif
 
Lou have found the following seems only dealers have to declare BUT the following still of assistance. Basic situation seems if can be proven (through expert opinion) that horse weaved prior to purchase and that there was no way the seller would not have known of the vice and had therefore misrepresented the horse then the buyer is able to demand a full refund.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/best/article.php?aid=39942

NFU legal/technical adviser, Nicola Cook, says: "If you innocently rely on the vendor's comments, such as believing the horse to be vice-free when it turns out to weave, then you have the right to your money back, including the full cost of the horse, compensation and other expenses incurred.

"But you have to be able to prove that the seller represented the horse wrongly or inaccurately. In court, that could simply come down to your word against theirs. For this reason, you should get a written representation from the seller when you buy a horse."

Out of interest was it vetted? if yes then surely case against vet as well!?.....
If prospect of going to court i would want solicitor to get 'statements' from the witnesses present to use as additional evidence horse was mis-respresented.
 
Shoot....the vetting wouldn't help you in court then L.

The sellers would no doubt use the vetting as part of their defence!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Shoot....the vetting wouldn't help you in court then L.

The sellers would no doubt use the vetting as part of their defence!

[/ QUOTE ]

Personallly I would disagree as was only a 2 stage vetting (so no xrays), and i'm betting a non equine specialist vet did it. I would have questions as to whether vet asked seller if horse vice free as if yes and expert vet can show was not you basically home and dry, and if he didn't ask then to me that is negligent of the vet...
 
I've never known a non specialist equine vet do a vetting though. Even equine vets don't like vettings because of the legal comeback there potentially can be.

I meant the sellers would try to use the vetting as their defence, not necessarily successfully, but they would certainly try surely? I know I would if I was them.
blush.gif
 
come down here then!!! A friends horse was vetted by a non equine vet fairly recently. The vet knew the basics but for the vetting they did miss several things wrong with the horse. My friend was though honest and wanted a good home so had already disclosed the conditions to the purchaser (included arthritis) who did go on to buy him but still the point remained...
 
Sorry. I only said I've never known (personal experience) I didn't mean none did it at all. Certainly wasn't suggesting you were mistaken either.

I guess being on the Cheshire border helps. I can reel off four specialist Equine practices that all cover my area. Perhaps this is why normal livestock vets won't touch horses. To be honest, I wouldn't want a horse vetted by a non-specialist vet either.

Our farm vet practice will not come out to horses, they refer you straight on to one of the equine practices. I'd hazard a guess our farm vet wouldn't have the first idea about what is required to fulfill a 2 stage vetting and most certainly wouldn't have the paperwork required for completion.
laugh.gif
 
sorry myself as reply a bit blunt, i'm tierd and ill but no excuse
tongue.gif


It is common practice though especially where equine specialists are few and far between. We have a vet 2 miles down the road who will treat horses but they do not have an equine specialist and I have moved to the practice who most consider to be the county's best equine practice and infact are solely equine vets. I tend to take horses to them as they are a 40min drive and saves on the call out but they are worth every penny.

The vet I left put the final nail in the coffin when they claimed Dan was continuously lame on 3 legs due to mild thrush, they charged me over £150 for the pleasure of telling me this, would not take xrays and the vet spent an hour looking over Dan trying to teach her student. You could say I was less than pleased. Thankfully new vets took 10 mins to identify a corn on the front foot and bone spavins and arthritis in the hinds which were confirmed by blocks/xrays.

Unfortunately this different levels of treatment is not uncommon down here and I would now have the issue that if I sold one of mine my vets shouldn't perform the vetting as they wouldn't be independent and to be honest I would struggle to find another vet close by that I would allow to vet them.

YO had a vetting done on her horse by another fairly local practice, the vet claimed it was broken winded and should be scoped. Horse was scoped (at her cost) by another specialist vet who confirmed horse made a very slight noise but this was no more than any normal large (17h2!) horse and did not effect its performance in any way, second vet passed horse through 5 stage vetting...
 
Gosh, we really are lucky up here then.

We have Nantwich Vets, Cheshire Equine Vets (Thomasson and Walters), Arnie Agnew's and Ashbrook.

Cheshire Equine are dedicated Equine Vets only, Nantwich have two hospitals, one for small animals Home Farm Equine Clinic. That is part of Reaseheath College. Not sure about Ashbrook (mmmm or is it Limebrook?? Confuddled!), never used them, but I know they have specialist equine vets for sure and there is also Arnie Agnew's who again I think do run a normal veterinary practice alongside their specialist vets.

These aren't one man operations either, each are large practices. This is why I've never personally known a non-equine vet do things like vettings. Around here there is just no need. Smaller practices won't touch horses with bargepoles and just refer you on.

Never realised how spoilt we were.
tongue.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top