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

They definitely removed the line stating she had offered to take the horse back or to swap it. So yes, there is probably information being held back on both sides but I still have to wonder how it can in any way be right that a 7.5k horse should leave the seller 200k poorer when the main point of complaint seems to be its height and an embellished competition record. Would this not set a precedent? Surely selling the horse could have recouped most of the sum (and saved cost of keep in the meantime). (And how could the buyer have spent the purchase sum equivalent on the horse since autumn anyway; is it the British livery prices that are that mad?)

I am trying to keep an open mind. I suppose I am just genuinely boggled the above justifies a court case and such a substantial ruling in favour of the buyer.
 
I'm very surprised by the amount. It seems he has been paid for the whole amount he spent keeping it, the horse, and a couple of grand for his upset as well. I didn't think English law worked that way. Also he gave the horse away instead of selling it, and the judge said that it was for the other side to prove it was worth anything, and they didn't. I wonder how much he was influenced by the fact that they would not go and see it and discuss things when asked to. That's in the summing up.

I'm not surprised he won. Every time we get a missold horse case, people point out that the law relating to consumer goods also applies to horses. So if a fridge was sold as the right height to fit under a work surface, and wasn't, you're entitled to a refund.

He specified a height limit on buying. The horse was over the height limit (this is common in bigger horses. Dealers exaggerate smaller ones and shrink bigger ones to make them more marketable. The demand for horses over seventeen hands is much lower. ) He didn't like/couldn't ride the mare, needed a reason to return it, and they had given him one on a plate. That's what happens when you use a law set up for selling woolly jumpers to sell a flesh and bone one.

The owner now needs to sue the dealer who made the misrepresentation on height to get her money back. I think that how it works with an agency sale.
 
Yes but define accurate height measurements! I know of many people who managed to get ponies under height using all sorts of methods, many of which were not pleasant. If you then took said animal and measured it when fit and well it would be much bigger. Plus who is going to do that for a horse under 10k? Its not a cheap process to take it to a proper measuring facility. When I come to sell my project, I will advertise him as approx height, which I suspect is how things will go in the future. If someone wants something specific, it is up to them to measure, or pay for it.
 
It isn't a fridge or a TV or a whatever, it's a living breathing animal, Height measurement, is that with shoes or without, feet trimmed or untrimmed ,is it stood to attention or relaxed with it's willy hanging out, .2 of a hand....

If he phoned me up to do any work for him I would say no thanks.
 
Flame_ said:
Could this mean that sellers start advertising horses with accurate height measurements? About blooming time!
Click to expand...

I do advertise with accurate heights and have had many people turn up and decide that my horse is "too big" including fairly recently a 148cm pony that is well up to height one lady took one look and said he was too big when I had clearly told her he was full up and chunky typical of his breed, most people really don't know how big a horse is, I have been told my own 16.2 must be well over 17 hands and he is not a big imposing type they look at me in amazement when I tell them his true size.

I have a livery who thinks her mare is 15.2 yet when it is stood next to it's 14.1 field companion is obviously no taller, the penny still hasn't dropped that hers is a pony and nowhere near 15.2.
 
ycbm said:
I'm very surprised by the amount. It seems he has been paid for the whole amount he spent keeping it, the horse, and a couple of grand for his upset as well. I didn't think English law worked that way. Also he gave the horse away instead of selling it, and the judge said that it was for the other side to prove it was worth anything, and they didn't. I wonder how much he was influenced by the fact that they would not go and see it and discuss things when asked to. That's in the summing up.

I'm not surprised he won. Every time we get a missold horse case, people point out that the law relating to consumer goods also applies to horses. So if a fridge was sold as the right height to fit under a work surface, and wasn't, you're entitled to a refund.

He specified a height limit on buying. The horse was over the height limit (this is common in bigger horses. Dealers exaggerate smaller ones and shrink bigger ones to make them more marketable. The demand for horses over seventeen hands is much lower. ) He didn't like/couldn't ride the mare, needed a reason to return it, and they had given him one on a plate. That's what happens when you use a law set up for selling woolly jumpers to sell a flesh and bone one.

The owner now needs to sue the dealer who made the misrepresentation on height to get her money back. I think that how it works with an agency sale.
Click to expand...

The costs wont be anywhere near that amount . You are only going on what the claimant has suggested it may cost the defendant and it will require the judge to agree on awarding cost on an indemnity which would be highly unlikely in a small claims case . In small claims nowadays it is not easy to reclaim cost at all as there is a drive to cut down the cost of it all.
I feel its just a frightener from an ex solicitor to the defendant and he really ought to know better than talk so openly before its been decided.
 
popsdosh said:
The costs wont be anywhere near that amount . You are only going on what the claimant has suggested it may cost the defendant and it will require the judge to agree on awarding cost on an indemnity which would be highly unlikely in a small claims case . In small claims nowadays it is not easy to reclaim cost at all as there is a drive to cut down the cost of it all.
I feel its just a frightener from an ex solicitor to the defendant and he really ought to know better than talk so openly before its been decided.
Click to expand...

Why have you replied to my post by talking about court costs? I haven't mentioned court costs.
 
It is perfectly obvious what has gone on here. In the statement the trainer stated the mare had been bucking and new owner had been dumped.

My take on that is that the owner wanted out with a good profit and without losing face. It was far easier to prove the horse was taller than advertised than it would be to prove there is a temperament issue. The new owner would not want to admit he can't ride one side of it would he. New owner is in the legal profession and would know full well how to get maximum gain, which he has done very handsomely, with bells on.
 
If you read the full court judgement the Judge sums up all the arguments that were put forward and which he dismisses and which he allows. Temperament, performance record, marginal grading score, were all dismissed. As I read it, the judgement was made solely on the horse not being the height at which it was sold. Silly dealer trick, one she won't play again, I'm sure. But the owner has paid for it big time, and may yet go after the dealer for the money, depending on whether she told her the mare was seventeen hands herself.

The buyer is of the type who make me scared ever to sell a horse again!
 
ycbm said:
I'm very surprised by the amount. It seems he has been paid for the whole amount he spent keeping it, the horse, and a couple of grand for his upset as well. I didn't think English law worked that way. Also he gave the horse away instead of selling it, and the judge said that it was for the other side to prove it was worth anything, and they didn't. I wonder how much he was influenced by the fact that they would not go and see it and discuss things when asked to. That's in the summing up.
Click to expand...

You hadnt mentioned the costs
 
be positive said:
I do advertise with accurate heights and have had many people turn up and decide that my horse is "too big" including fairly recently a 148cm pony that is well up to height one lady took one look and said he was too big when I had clearly told her he was full up and chunky typical of his breed, most people really don't know how big a horse is, I have been told my own 16.2 must be well over 17 hands and he is not a big imposing type they look at me in amazement when I tell them his true size.

I have a livery who thinks her mare is 15.2 yet when it is stood next to it's 14.1 field companion is obviously no taller, the penny still hasn't dropped that hers is a pony and nowhere near 15.2.
Click to expand...

Yes I have found many people over estimate horses size. I have a measuring stick and some people who are borrowed it are quite shocked that their horse is not as tall as they thought!

I've heard in the past that some breeds were measured is slightly different places also, for example Friesians being measured slightly higher up.
 
The seller was wrong to embellish the competition record and someone (ie both buyer and seller) should have checked the height. However, this is a ridiculous waste of money on all sides and should have been resolved.

I know it sounds silly that the judge has gone in the buyer's favour mostly based on height, but tbh that is the strongest legal case to make! We all know how impossible it is to prove mis-selling for behavioural reasons, so it has to be something physical and quantifiable like that.
 
popsdosh said:
You hadnt mentioned the costs
Click to expand...

Your reply to my previous post was all about COURT costs, which I did not mention.

The award is over£14,000, to cover the purchase price, the amount he spent getting her home, training, and keeping her, and over £2,000 for him not enjoying owning her.

Court costs have yet to be decided.
 
I have just read the court judgement. Apparent the buyer had 2 horses previously that for some reason weren't suitable. When he decided his £7.5k purchase wasn't suitable as a schoolmaster he spent £30k at a Brightwells sale (usually just backed youngsters) on a horse called Fernando that has since been destroyed. This guy is a walking disaster when it comes to horses.
 
vanrim said:
I have just read the court judgement. Apparent the buyer had 2 horses previously that for some reason weren't suitable. When he decided his £7.5k purchase wasn't suitable as a schoolmaster he spent £30k at a Brightwells sale (usually just backed youngsters) on a horse called Fernando that has since been destroyed. This guy is a walking disaster when it comes to horses.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, another case of way more money than sense, again. A work colleague had one of these on her yard - very novice bloke decided to buy his first horse and instead of getting something a bit older with some miles on the clock awas d a sensible attitude, he bought a papered WB because it was very big and had flashy paces. My friend knew the horse and said he was a lovely character who was basically honest and well-schooled but would intelligent enough to spot a novice and try it on a bit. The owner was only likely to be hacking him although he fancied going hunting, so a horse bred for dressage wasn't exactly a suitable buy and apparently within weeks thanks to confusing badly given aids the horse was refusing to go forward and was starting to nap and basically not a happy bunny.
 
Reading through the comments, one thing that jumps out at me is that all the posters are making a judgment ...which is based on their own equine knowledge.

However, (and I have seen a friend suffer from this in court), it is highly unlikely that the judge will have equine knowledge and will be judging the proven facts put in front of him. So we are all amazed about the query over height...we would check and again, I don't know anyone who didn't check competition/breeding for themselves when buying a horse. A judge would have the hard fact in front of them...horse was sold incorrectly measured. Record is wrong. In fact, turning it around, we shouldn't be making allowances for people who aren't correct with their facts! I agree there is a high possibility there is much more than meets the eye here but we don't have access to this. I have been to see horses way over height despite me double checking. I have also been to see horses who were at the correct height but "rode" so much bigger. I am more concerned as to what impact this has on the dealing market now.
 
Having read the H&H report and then the court judgement (more skim-read as couldn't cope with all the legal jargon!), one thing that jumped out at me was that despite having TWO trainers, it appears that he didn't take either or both of them to view the horse with him at least once, instead he just showed them the videos. It's likely that the height issue could have been noticed and addressed by the trainer/s at viewing, and it would have been far easier for the trainer/s to assess the horse's suitability 'in person' rather than via video clip. Especially if he'd already had two 'unsuitable' horses, you'd have thought he/the trainers would be trying to minimize it happening again.
 
after 2 unsuitable horses and I imagine knowing in more detail than we will about why they were unsuitable. if I were a trainer I would certainly not be viewing horses with him
 
crabbymare said:
after 2 unsuitable horses and I imagine knowing in more detail than we will about why they were unsuitable. if I were a trainer I would certainly not be viewing horses with him
Click to expand...

We don't know the full story but I agree that one of the trainers should have been more fully involved with the purchase, if they were not prepared to view then they should also have stepped away from the "training" but that was probably too lucrative as even an unsuitable horse was still going to be kept at livery.


What I fail to understand is why he owned 2 3.5 ton boxes and had to find a horse that fitted in them, it seems odd to own 2 boxes for just 2 horses, both had gone by then, which could have comfortably fitted in a 7.5 ton box, he is old enough to drive one and it would offer far more than a 3.5 ever will.
 
be positive said:
What I fail to understand is why he owned 2 3.5 ton boxes and had to find a horse that fitted in them, it seems odd to own 2 boxes for just 2 horses, both had gone by then, which could have comfortably fitted in a 7.5 ton box, he is old enough to drive one and it would offer far more than a 3.5 ever will.
Click to expand...

They're LT50s, so 5 ton. But still odd for a one/two horse owner to have two lorries!
 
Must admit I found this whole case strange that even after a judgement in his favour the purchaser has been so out for publicity and spite to be frank in view of the costs being claimed . Maybe in light of the Brightwells horse this may give us a clue as the publicity will do no harm if he is about to take action against them and wishes to frighten them. I think that may be a totally different ball game however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top