Legal Eagle help please

B

barnum

Active Member
Joined
8 February 2010
Messages
40
Visit site
I wonder if anyone can suggest what to do next without spending a lot of money.
Friend bought a young event horse from an eventing/stud yard (professionals) just over 2 years ago, horse was vetted in his winter woolies. When he shed out it was found that he had scars in the girth area where sarcoids had been removed and they were starting to regrow, more started in the groin area and on a stifle. Horse obviously unrideable. Friend contacted vet who confirmed he had asked if there were any sarcoid problems when vetting and had been told 'no' , Friend had also asked about sarcoids when trying the horse and had a friend present who could confirm that she was told there had been no problems.
On contacting previous owners (dealers) who had bred the horse and had him operated on for the sarcoids denied any knowledge.
Friend contacted solicitor and proceedings started for small claims court purchase price was £5K. This dragged on for nearly 2 years with previous owners insisting on visiting several times and getting court date put back as not convenient, finally went to court, many pictures, vet statement provided re question at vetting, friend statement and attendance at court, paperwork showing that horse had been operated on by vendors vet at their request. Statement that horse has been unrideable and has cost a fortune in treating all the sarcoids.
Judge dismissed the claim, believed vendor that stud and eventing yard were run as separate businesses by husband and wife and vendor didn't know spouse had horse operated on. We are all devasted for my friend, she had spent all her money on this horse as a last fling at eventing (getting on in years Embarrassed) every last penny has been spent on treating this horse who is a dear boy but still being treated and girth area remains uncomfortable so unrideable with no real prospect of getting back to work.
We believed that if a horse was sold by a dealer it had the same protection in law as if buying a car for instance and if a car dealer denied knowing that a car had faults would still be liable.
Any ideas please????????
 
What stupid judge was that??? They may have been seperate businesses, but to their customers, they may have appeared as one - simply due to their closeness. I do worry about some of the stupid idiots that study law in this country, and then become judges - hence having control over the country's legal system. Some of them are really not worthy of any degree at all as they do not even have common sense. They were husband and wife, for goodness sake!!! Do they NOT talk??

I am very annoyed for you... can you tell :mad:

Bumping your thread up.
 
I would appeal the decision if thats an option.

If the wife wasnt aware what major vet treatment the horse had been subject to, then when asked they should have said they didnt know. But they have held themselves out to know and provided information the buyer was entitled to rely on.

BTW I think this is an object lesson in why its better to pay more for a horse in summer if you have to , but buy it then. Sweet itch and all sorts of other nasties like headshaking can also be missed if not buying horses when you can really see every inch of them and in the season where stuff is likely to show up.

Im not a lawyer but OH is so view is just informed amateur, I think it would be worth her getting a solicitors opinion on it.
 
Does this actually mean a dealer has NO obligation to find out any of the horse's history? I mean... if I were a dealer and wanted to have happy customers, I would like to have the "full service history" of the horses I intend to sell. I would gladly appreciate it if during vetting, buyers would actually be allowed to talk to the horse's previous vets to check whether what is being said is right.

So this is what I found out:

"If the seller is a dealer he has to ensure that the horse is of satisfactory quality. A horse would be of ‘satisfactory quality,’ if it met the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the animal’s description, the price and all the relevant circumstances."

Well - in this instance, the seller did not ensure the horse was of satisfactory quality. In fact, he did not even know his history - though the horse was owned by his wife! All he had to do was ask his wife, but oh well, some men have problems with that, I suppose.

They do say that if the seller had told you of certain issues and those issues came back to bite you later, the seller is somewhat "protected". However, in this case, he mentioned nothing whatsoever after having been asked several times.

If the dealer didn't know I still think he has not done his job - and should really be done for negligence! Had a doctor not done his/her job properly, that would be the case. But unfortunately, I'm no legal expert (my dad is, but he can't be bothered with horsey matters) and I have a very high benchmark for justice that can never be met by the legal system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top