Leagal advice please

P

Puzzled

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 January 2009
Messages
969
Visit site
I recently bought a horse from a dealer (they don't advertise as such but they have lots of adverts about!) I was told it was sold as seen as they'd only had it a few days and that it was 5 years old (have this in writing). However it's papers now show it is in fact only four this year (which means it's not going to do the amount of work I bought it for) plus having had it home a week it's now rubbed all it's mane off and obviously has sweet itch
frown.gif
I don't have the time to look after a pony who will obviously need more care with this condition. I didn't have it vetted (hindsight is a wonderful thing!) I've asked them to take it back but so far they have refused. I've already spent quite a lot of money on him what with farrier, wormers etc. Where do I stand legally? What should I do next?
confused.gif
 
Think you should put in writing to the dealer your complaint and request a full refund -keep a copy of all letters ect .Contact Trading Standards they may have had dealings with this dealer before .Finally file a claim at the small claims court .
 
Ring trading standards they will give you the exact wording to put in a letter they are really helpful, I have had a similar problem recently. Make sure you send letter recorded.
 
Thanks all. Just wondered if I had a legitimate claim re the age difference (so the horse isn't as described) plus the sweet itch issue. Will get on to trading standards and other advice will be greatfully received.
 
Are you sure it is sweet itch.There is alot of lice infestations about at the moment.I wouldn,t worry that it was four instead of five.Is it the possability of it having sweet itch that is really bothering you?If you bought it as sold as seen i don't see that you legally have a leg to stand on.I would definately double check the mane rubbing isn't lice before you get too worried about sweet itch.
 
It's always caveat emptor or buyer beware - so if sold as seen, I also wouldn't have thought you would have a leg to stand on.

However, might be worth pursuing on the off-chance you get them to take it back/get refund etc.
 
Was the sweetitch present when you viewed the horse? It may be your yard is more sheltered, wooded near water than where you bought it from meaning midges are more likely to be present. So the seller may not have known it was susceptable. Speak to consumer direct, they are very helpful, they will refer it to trading standards it they feel it necessary.
 
Marlyclay is unfortunately correct about lice. Had the vet out last week cos suspected one of mine had developed sweetitch. delighted to say the vet thinks it is lice - he couldn't see any.

If it is sweetitch, I have got a feeling that it is a condition that must be stated at time of sale. The caveat of buyer beware is excluded.

But, given that horse was "sold as seen", the dealer may be able to avoid this.

How about a vet examination to clarify if horse does have sweetitch, if it does you can ask the vet for a written letter confirming this.

Hopefully you've got a nitty nag like mine!
 
If it is a dealer it's actually seller beware as dealers are liable for problems in horses they have sold even if they did not know about it. I had a warranty that stated I had seen and tried the pony but still won my court case.
 
Even as a dealer, you would be hard pressed to claim they should have known about a condition that wasn't present when the horse was bought. Had the horse been with them for years, or had signs / treatment for sweet itch, that is one thing, but if it developed after the horse was moved to a new location, it really isn't the dealers fault. Sweetitch isn't a huge deal, we had a couple with it, we hogged them and used benzol Benzoate - no big deal.

In terms of the horses age - it depends on what the evidence is I presume - if you have the foaling records etc, then I would say that was pretty reasonable proof - however, if it is vets word against dealers word, I would say that was far dodgier, as there really are grey areas with teeth! But either way, if the horse is 4 or 5, I am not sure what real difference this makes? Both would still need careful riding to prevent injury, it isn't the same as if, say, the horse was 4 and had been aged as 8 where there is a real difference in what they can do.
 
That's the point - the dealer doesn't have to have known about the problem.

the problem will be establishing that the person is a dealer and that the problem affects the horses suitability for the job it was bought for. The following is a quote from a h and h answer. I can't find the actual quote from the sale of goods act that says a dealer is liable even if they were unaware of the problem at the time of sale.


Buying from a dealer


The Sale of Goods Act applies only if you buy an equine from a person classified as a 'dealer'. Buying from a dealer can offer the best protection.


If you find your new horse has a problem, making him unsuitable for the purpose you bought him, you're entitled to your money back – even if the dealer denies knowledge.


The Act implies certain conditions of sale – your 'statutory rights'.


These are:


1. The horse must be of 'reasonable' or 'satisfactory' quality – for instance, free of defects such as lameness – unless you have prior knowledge and accept the condition.


2. The new horse must be fit for the purpose for which it was generally sold, or any purpose made known at the time of the agreement.


3. He must be 'as described'. If your new eight-year-old turns out to be over 18, it's a breach of trading standards.


If one or all of these criteria are not met, you may be entitled to a full refund or the difference in value between the horse you thought you were buying and the one you got.
 
I am going through a similar thing.

To win the court case you must:

a. Prove that the dealer was acting in the "course of a business". This would be v easy to prove if they are selling lots of horses as they clearly deriving an income from it.

b. That the horse is not as described - this is an implied term under s.13 of the sale of goods act. S.13 can not be excluded by the statement 'sold as seen' under the UCTA (Unfair contract Terms Act).

c. I would also add inthat the horse had sweet itch which was not disclosed but i think you may be on a sticky wicket here as he dealer could argue that they did not know and could not resonabley have known.
 
Re: Sale of goods act, my interpretation would be that on the sweet itch you are excluded from all points as it isnt really an issue with the quality of the horse, it doesn't affect his fitness for purpose, and no represntations about sweet itch were made either way.
You might have a claim for the age, but I would suspect only if you can show that there is no question either way about it, and I think that as the 4-5 distinction is relatively minor, you may also need to show that the dealer knew about it - if he lied it shows a deliberate misrepresentation and therefore suggests that you were both aware that the exact age was important. Without proof that the dealer knew, I think you might end up with a fight on your hands cos there is a strong argument that it doesnt make a real difference, and therefor the horse is not not as described.

If the person turns over a significant number of horses that they buy with the aim of making profit, you can call them a dealer, and here as they sold to you within a few days of purchase they would be quite had pressed to argue they werent dealing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top