Legal bill for dispute over £7.5k horse could hit £200k

It took him 3 months to decide she was 2 inches taller than she was sold as, that seems to be his "case" and he won, the world has gone mad, as a solicitor he should have checked all the details before buying if they were so important, I hope the seller had insurance to cover the costs involved.
 
I don't even understand what I've just read ... I'm assuming we haven't quite got the whole story because otherwise it sounds like he's essentially won the case on the grounds that the horse is two inches bigger than advertised (um, hello, does the judge know that the buyer would have been perfectly capable of checking the height?) and because the agent made a slight exaggeration regarding its competition record. On those grounds, I think 50% of buyers would have a decent court case against the sellers!
 
Like Hash I Feel like there is something we are not aware of in this case. The winning criteria seem heavily overblown and even then the court costs seem very inflated considering the duration and nature of the case itself.
Either there's something we don't know or the person who took it to court got the most expensive lawyer there was.
 
How bizzare.....and how unusual to find a horse is 2" bigger than stated as opposed to 2" smaller.
 
As this is presented: how utterly bizarre. There are quite a few easier and better ways the buyer could have handled this, are there not.

If competition record matters that much when buying a horse surely you do your own research before committing to buy.

If exact height matters that much you verify the height when trying the horse out, or at least before committing to buy. Subject to horsebox limitations you might even want to know you have some inches to spare! How completely odd to call a slight height discrepancy misrepresentation, and furthermore to have this ruled in your favour in court, when the height of the horse was right there for you to check yourself at any time and you knew in any case it was at the maximum height for you when you bought it.

Why not.. sell the horse? Take the seller up on the offer to swap? Sell one of the two horseboxes and get one fitting the horse you own?

How appalling to be awarded such sums over a mistake you yourself have made and one that would be easily rectifiable without dragging a seller to court at that.

I am perplexed.
 
How odd that the vetting vet wasn't asked to check the height if that was likely to be an issue?
(Mind you we went to see a horse we were told was 'about 16h', thought on viewing was a bit more like 16.2, as 16.1 on passport and has since grown to at least 16.3 according to everyone who says how big she is, but as she is a very slim build she fits our 16.2 max trailer with plenty of room to spare.)
 
That's mad... there must be more to it..

If height was that important surely you'd take a stick or get a vet to check?? Unless he bought unseen?
 
cobgoblin said:
How bizzare.....and how unusual to find a horse is 2" bigger than stated as opposed to 2" smaller.
Click to expand...

I can understand that with a horse that tall. I know lots of people who would set 17hh as a limit when they're looking and won't look beyond that - if for no other reason than they worry about finding stuff to fit or fitting it in their stables! My share horse's owner insists he's 16.3 but we both know he's 17hh. Makes no difference really but 17hh is a psychological barrier for her.
 
Dubsie said:
How odd that the vetting vet wasn't asked to check the height if that was likely to be an issue?
(Mind you we went to see a horse we were told was 'about 16h', thought on viewing was a bit more like 16.2, as 16.1 on passport and has since grown to at least 16.3 according to everyone who says how big she is, but as she is a very slim build she fits our 16.2 max trailer with plenty of room to spare.)
Click to expand...

Checking height is not part of a five stage vetting .
 
Not part of the vetting, but you can ask the vet to put the measuring stick on if its that important. This seems entirely weird.

The seller offered to take the horse back and refund the money.
 
From what I've just found on Google, IBOP pass mark of 75 is a scrape through by the skin of her teeth. 74 is a fail. I'd be bloody mad if I was told it had passed with flying colours to find that out later. So when he went checking the background after she'd bucked him off a time or two, he found enough to convince a judge to err in his favour with that and the height. I think it's fair enough, the grading was an outright lie.


I have, through a friend, some experience of Two Mills and Jemma from several years ago. While they are no worse than most other dealers, I would say that if they have a fault they are unconcerned whether the buyer has the skills to ride the horse they are selling or not. While this was OK in the past, buyers are more prepared to go to court these days and they may need to sharpen up a bit in that respect. They had good horses at fair prices, though.
 
Last edited:
I think there is a lot missing from that story.

If they offered a full refund why didn't he take it?

Yes they have lied about 75 being 'flying colours' for IBOP but why didn't he check for himself?

Seems to me that he's become a bit embarrassed that he's overhorsed and rather than accept the offer of a refund decided to go to court to make a point. Also makes me wonder if he knew the judge.
 
tankgirl1 said:
Don't ever sell even the best horse ever to a solicitor, retired or otherwise seems to be the moral of this story!

Buyer sounds like a nasty piece of work
Click to expand...

madlady said:
I think there is a lot missing from that story.

If they offered a full refund why didn't he take it?

Yes they have lied about 75 being 'flying colours' for IBOP but why didn't he check for himself?

Seems to me that he's become a bit embarrassed that he's overhorsed and rather than accept the offer of a refund decided to go to court to make a point. Also makes me wonder if he knew the judge.
Click to expand...
For me the above statements sum the whole thing perfectly
 
madlady said:
I think there is a lot missing from that story.

If they offered a full refund why didn't he take it?

Yes they have lied about 75 being 'flying colours' for IBOP but why didn't he check for himself?

Seems to me that he's become a bit embarrassed that he's overhorsed and rather than accept the offer of a refund decided to go to court to make a point. Also makes me wonder if he knew the judge.
Click to expand...

Where did you find any information that he was offered a refund? It's not in the Judge's summing up, which is available on full online.

Do you realise how big an accusation it is to suggest that there may have been collusion between the complainant and the judge? Do you have the slightest evidence for that claim? Did you read the full judgement before you made such a serious suggestion?
 
The full refund was a comment made by the seller in the article, so I don't know if it was brought up in court. Strange if it wasn't though.
 
What l couldn't understand was that the buyer wasn't satisfied with a full refund of £7.5k he wanted double the amount £15k. Who expects to make a profit like that to me it's greed. Like someone else said he's a retired solicitor l know we don't know the full story but l feel for the seller.
 
ycbm said:
There is no mention of a refund in the article or in the Court judgement. Or am I going blind?
Click to expand...


Between the two lines copied below there was another sentence now removed, which said something like " I offered a refund of the purchase price£7.5k but he wanted £14??k to cover expenses"
Also something about him being happy for 2 months which meant she thought all was well, in reality going by the judgement he only rode the mare once, the replacement didn't last long either.

“I always hold money for two weeks in case a customer isn’t happy,” she told H&H.


“He wanted nearly £15,000, for a £7,500 horse.
Read more at http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news...-5k-horse-hit-200k-609498#HemuysrQ1XKDE3Bj.99
 
be positive said:
Between the two lines copied below there was another sentence now removed, which said something like " I offered a refund of the purchase price£7.5k but he wanted £14??k to cover expenses"
Also something about him being happy for 2 months which meant she thought all was well, in reality going by the judgement he only rode the mare once, the replacement didn't last long either.

“I always hold money for two weeks in case a customer isn’t happy,” she told H&H.


“He wanted nearly £15,000, for a £7,500 horse.
Read more at http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news...-5k-horse-hit-200k-609498#HemuysrQ1XKDE3Bj.99
Click to expand...


Presumably it has been edited because it was not true that she offered him a refund, then. Which would be why it was not mentioned in the Judge's summary, even though it is very detailed.

Holding the money for two weeks is irrelevant, the complaint was not made within two weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top