Interesting ruling from Sweden on a miss-sold horse case

[shortstuff99]

I'm not sure if anyone has seen the ruling on a court case that has been going for 4 years. The ruling can be found here https://www.eurodressage.com/2020/0...laustsen-settles-after-four-year-legal-battle

It involved a rider buying a top horse which turned out to have KS and was PTS. The dealer in turn said it was the riders fault. The ruling is quite interesting as it mentions that in the first 6 months the dealer has to prove that the owner caused the issues and not the other way around. Would this be something that could apply in the UK? Would you want it to?

 

[ihatework]

Oh gosh such a can of worms.
There are arguments both ways.

In this case, the one thing that strikes me is if these girls were such bad riders as he claims and overhorsed themselves, why sell to them in the first place? Big dealing/production yard selling expensive horses - they should make it their mission to match compatible horse and rider.

PS - it can’t have been a top horse, it only cost 24k. Run of the mill price for that sort of yard

 

[shortstuff99]

Oh gosh such a can of worms.
There are arguments both ways.

In this case, the one thing that strikes me is if these girls were such bad riders as he claims and overhorsed themselves, why sell to them in the first place? Big dealing/production yard selling expensive horses - they should make it their mission to match compatible horse and rider.

PS - it can’t have been a top horse, it only cost 24k. Run of the mill price for that sort of yard

This is the bit that has always confused me with sellers, in that if you worried about the rider or how they would cope wouldn't you refuse to sell to stop this sort of thing happening?

Haha to me 24k seems massive ?. I just wondered how this might affect future sales here, makes dealers a bit more accountable.

 

[AandK]

Yes it does apply in the UK. Buying from a dealer you are covered by the consumer rights act. Issues/faults that occur in the first 6 months (outside of the 30 day right to reject) are "presumed to have been there since the time you took ownership - unless the retailer (dealer) can prove otherwise"

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act

 

[shortstuff99]

Yes it does apply in the UK. Buying from a dealer you are covered by the consumer rights act. Issues/faults that occur in the first 6 months (outside of the 30 day right to reject) are "presumed to have been there since the time you took ownership - unless the retailer (dealer) can prove otherwise"

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act

How often does that get used in horse cases? Can't say I've seen that in a ruling!

 

[AandK]

How often does that get used in horse cases? Can't say I've seen that in a ruling!

Quite a lot I gather. I follow a dodgy dealer page on FB that has a lot of such cases.

 

[shortstuff99]

Quite a lot I gather. I follow a dodgy dealer page on FB that has a lot of such cases.

That's good then, as all I ever seem to see is 'buyer beware' and they're horse etc.

 

[Cortez]

This is the bit that has always confused me with sellers, in that if you worried about the rider or how they would cope wouldn't you refuse to sell to stop this sort of thing happening?

Well, you might, if you weren't all that fussed about selling it. If you were an actual horse trader then I presume you would want to, like, sell it? Running a horse business like a dating agency has always struck me as being a bit odd. Of course we'd all love our horses to go to the very best of riders/homes, but reality often doesn't work out that way.

 

[Trouper]

With dealers there's dodgy and then those who have had court cases against them. I don't know if this would be possible in the UK but it would be good if one could access court records on dealers at least to get information on the most serious cases of mis-selling. But, yes, they are in business and are not primarily concerned if the horse will suit you - bit like selling performance cars to teenagers!.

 

[Orangehorse]

A dealer is in business to make money, it isn't a dating agency! A dealer might wonder why a buyer wants a certain horse, but they are adults and they can spend their own money how they wish.

There have been cases in the UK over mis-sold horses and while not knowing all the facts it sometimes seems to depend who is the judge on who wins. There was one case, the seller was very well known at the time, and just reading the report it seemed plain that the seller had disclosed everything (I think it was a horse with a buck), but the buyers still won the case.

 

[shortstuff99]

Well, you might, if you weren't all that fussed about selling it. If you were an actual horse trader then I presume you would want to, like, sell it? Running a horse business like a dating agency has always struck me as being a bit odd. Of course we'd all love our horses to go to the very best of riders/homes, but reality often doesn't work out that way.

It was more of if you plainly know its not going to suit are you really going to risk your reputation selling it to them? 99% of buyers are probably not going to admit it was their lack of skills and instead are going to tell everybody (especially with social media now) how they were miss sold. That could ruin reputations in a second. I would take a bit of effort and save my reputation rather then risk it.

 

[be positive]

It was more of if you plainly know its not going to suit are you really going to risk your reputation selling it to them? 99% of buyers are probably not going to admit it was their lack of skills and instead are going to tell everybody (especially with social media now) how they were miss sold. That could ruin reputations in a second. I would take a bit of effort and save my reputation rather then risk it.

I only sold in a very small way, often sales liveries, but was always prepared to turn buyers away if they were not, in my view, competent enough or offering what I considered to be a suitable home, it was part of the job to try to find the best home for each horse and also to try to ensure the buyer would be happy with their purchase, it meant a fair bit of screening before viewing with only the odd one slipping through to view so far less time wasted, frequently selling to the first viewer so everyone was happy.

It was never easy to refuse to sell to someone who was trying a horse and I did feel awful one day telling a young girl that the horse she loved would not be suitable, she was a nice enough rider but he was a bright older horse that needed a bit of bossing to keep on top of otherwise he would keep pushing the boundaries , she was in tears but it really would have been the wrong home, her mum was experienced enough to understand but it was tricky, the horse sold to the next people who 'got him' and his needs.

 

[CanteringCarrot]

Ok, a few things here:

Did the dealer know that the horse has kissing spines? Did the buyer do a PPE with their vet a choice? Because if the answer is "no" to both of those questions, how would he be the dealers fault?

There was another case involving an accident between a horse and rider. Ok, so, an accident. I don't have the details, but again, how is a dealer liable? Why does the dealer have to take a horse back if someone gets injured in a riding accident?

I don't know that dealers/sellers in general carry some responsibility by law to match up a suitable horse and rider. By common sense and decent business practice perhaps. However, many are also buying €€€ horses sight unseen. So that can make it more difficult. I think it is on the buyer to chose a suitable horse to buy. They're the ones that know their abilities. If they buy an unsuitable mount, that's on them. Unless the horses wasn't sold as advertised, that's entirely different.

I don't know, maybe it's from living in Germany for awhile where everything is your fault ? but I feel like there is responsibility on the buyer (due diligence and all that) as well as the seller. We do have laws to protect buyers here as well though. But if things get too carried away people can take advantage and make frivolous claims if they have buyer's remorse. So I think both parties need protection, really.

 

[ycbm]

Ok, a few things here:

Did the dealer know that the horse has kissing spines? Did the buyer do a PPE with their vet a choice? Because if the answer is "no" to both of those questions, how would he be the dealers fault?

It's the dealer's responsibility because a PPE won't normally pick up kissing spines in a horse which has been ridden happily by the prospective buyer, and as a professional seller, a dealer is responsible for any faults with what they sell. If you sell a washing machine and a faulty part that nobody knew was inside it breaks, then you are entitled to a fix or refund. It's the same with horses, a professional seller does not have to know that the horse was faulty when it was sold.
.

 

[Widgeon]

Ok, a few things here:

Did the dealer know that the horse has kissing spines? Did the buyer do a PPE with their vet a choice? Because if the answer is "no" to both of those questions, how would he be the dealers fault?

This seems like a fair question. However as I see it, the point at which the dealer got things wrong was when he refused to take back the horse. The horse proved unsuitable within the 6 months (I don't believe there is a list of specific reasons *why* a horse can be deemed unsuitable, but presumably KS would be one) and as such I think the consumer rights act in England (and, it appears, in Sweden) would mean that the unfortunate financial loss rests with the dealer. So the dealer should have taken the horse back. Have I understood this correctly?

The second one, the case where the girl had an accident and the dealer refused to repurchase the horse for the whole price, surely rests on why the horse crashed into a concrete wall. If it really was a case of the rider being overhorsed, then the dealer offering part of the purchase price back seems fairly reasonable to me. After all, he might well struggle to re-sell the horse to a more suitable rider after an incident like that. However if the horse went nuts and ran into the wall with no warning, then that's another story. I can't see that there's enough information here to see what's going on with this one.

 

[Widgeon]

It's the dealer's responsibility because a PPE won't normally pick up kissing spines in a horse which has been ridden happily by the prospective buyer, and as a professional seller, a dealer is responsible for any faults with what they sell. If you sell a washing machine and a faulty part that nobody knew was inside it breaks, then you are entitled to a fix or refund. It's the same with horses, a professional seller does not have to know that the horse was faulty when it was sold.
.

Cross-posted, think you've answered my question YCBM....thanks

 

[oldie48]

I wonder how many horses, if x rayed would have KS? I understand it is a lot more common than we think and it doesn't always cause a problem. The article suggests that this dealer had a dodgy record and a history of going bankrupt, so I doubt the buyer will see any money but I'd hate to try to earn my living by selling horses, there's too many bits to go wrong and you just can't replace a part like you can with a washing machine!

 

[CanteringCarrot]

It's the dealer's responsibility because a PPE won't normally pick up kissing spines in a horse which has been ridden happily by the prospective buyer, and as a professional seller, a dealer is responsible for any faults with what they sell. If you sell a washing machine and a faulty part that nobody knew was inside it breaks, then you are entitled to a fix or refund. It's the same with horses, a professional seller does not have to know that the horse was faulty when it was sold.
.

Okay, I suppose I am in the minority in that I x-ray the spine and neck. My PPE would pick up on kissing spines, so maybe that's why I see it that way. I'm also out of touch with what others consider a PPE/full PPE.

If the horse was happily ridden by the prospective buyer, there would be no reason to think that the horse would be unsuitable. But as a professional (key word) they should take the horse back for a refund or exchange of sorts if the horse proves unsuitable within x anount of time. Then I guess it depends on where you are in the world in respect to who assumes the burden of proof. I mean, in some cases people really can "ruin" a horse in a short amount of time!

When the horse proves unsuitable within 6 months, the dealer must take the horse back. Ok, so what is the difference between buying and taking a horse on trial then? It's as if any horse comes with a 6 month trial period. I guess.

I'm also not sure a comparison can be made between an animal and a manufactured machine. A machine having a warranty against faulty parts, sure, but an animal, I'm not so sure. I guess I'm just divided on the matter. I can see and understand both sides. But where does the buyer's responsibility begin and end? Regarding the horse, not the machine.

Buying and selling are both risky endeavors I suppose. Well, as is owning one these creatures in general, really.

 

[CanteringCarrot]

This seems like a fair question. However as I see it, the point at which the dealer got things wrong was when he refused to take back the horse. The horse proved unsuitable within the 6 months (I don't believe there is a list of specific reasons *why* a horse can be deemed unsuitable, but presumably KS would be one) and as such I think the consumer rights act in England (and, it appears, in Sweden) would mean that the unfortunate financial loss rests with the dealer. So the dealer should have taken the horse back. Have I understood this correctly?

The second one, the case where the girl had an accident and the dealer refused to repurchase the horse for the whole price, surely rests on why the horse crashed into a concrete wall. If it really was a case of the rider being overhorsed, then the dealer offering part of the purchase price back seems fairly reasonable to me. After all, he might well struggle to re-sell the horse to a more suitable rider after an incident like that. However if the horse went nuts and ran into the wall with no warning, then that's another story. I can't see that there's enough information here to see what's going on with this one.

That's the thing, what is the threshold here? It really is important to know all of the details.

 

[oldie48]

That's the thing, what is the threshold here? It really is important to know all of the details.

I guess that's why these things end up in court, because the threshold is not clear and can't be clear really.

 

[DiNozzo]

Well, you might, if you weren't all that fussed about selling it. If you were an actual horse trader then I presume you would want to, like, sell it? Running a horse business like a dating agency has always struck me as being a bit odd. Of course we'd all love our horses to go to the very best of riders/homes, but reality often doesn't work out that way.

I think there's a difference though, in 'running a horse business like a dating agency', and having a good reputation! Like @be positive's example.

If the seller in the OP thought the buyers to be such bad riders, they should have realised that there was going to be problems and complaints. This equals bad publicity equals loss of potential sales. If he was going to sell them something, it should have been something they could ride comfortably* in their ability. That would protect himself from complaints, the horse which was worth more before they had it, and the buyers! Everyone happy means good service.

*Presuming the riders were actually as bad as the seller seems to have suggested and the cause of the horses problems, which doesn't really seem to be the case.

ETA: Sorry, read the thread properly and people seem to have already said this!