legal experts please

S

Snow steps

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 September 2013
Messages
50
Visit site
The situation

Horses was purchased from a dealer. Horse was not fit for purpose. Dealer replaced with another horse. Owner now wants to sell the said horse from dealer after a couple of years of "ownership" and it has now come to light that the dealer did not in fact own the horse that was the replacement horse he only had it on loan. What is the legal position on this? Does the horse need to go back to the dealer or owner? What about the £1500 that was given to the dealer in the first instance for the original horse?
 
I am not a legal expert but if you swap the word horse for car, the answer will be pretty obvious to any-one. I would involve the police and insist that they treat it as a crime, not as a civil matter, which will no doubt be their first response, it usually is with anything involving a horse.
 
The horse still belongs to the original owner, the dealer had no authority to sell it, unless he has appropriate paperwork to say otherwise. The dealer's actions amount to fraud.

It would not matter that the horse was swapped, as it was in effect a like for like swap, and so as if he bought the original horse back and sold you this one.

I would tell said dealer so, and demand my money back. I would then report the fraud against me to the Police. I would also report the original theft of the horse from the original owner.

I would not accept this as a civil matter, and if it was to be treated this way I would make a complaint. I am however not a solicitor.
 
Last edited:
It needs reporting to the police. Don't be fobbed of with the 'civil matter' line. Point out the comparison with a car. However - the first line of investigation has to be with the original owner of the horse in question. IF they do not want to report it as stolen, then there is no crime, and therefore if the current owner wants to sell it, they can. All they are doing is selling a horse that was sold to them for £1500 two years ago. I would, however, keep every scrap of documentation and receipts/police reference numbers/officer's name - just in case it ever comes back to bite you on the bum. If the original owner makes a report of theft, then the current owner is going to have to keep hold until a court decides the right of ownership. In the case of late-recovered stolen cars where the insurance has paid out, the car is judged to belong to the insurance company. On a practical level, once the police have decided how to proceed, I would ask for my details to be passed to the original owner and try to open some line of communication. If only for the fact that they *may* have spent two years worried sick about their horse and be relieved to know it is well and cared for.
 
The only problem with pursuing the criminal course of action is that it doesn't vastly help the OP. Yes, the dealer may face a criminal action but OP is still left not owning the horse and having lost the original "purchase price". So I would use the threat of legal action against the dealer as a means of persuading them to return the greater of the purchase money and the market value that the horse is now worth. If this doesn't work, then I would notify police that this is a potential theft or fraud and bring a civil claim for misrepresentation and breach of implied warranty as to title.
 
But, if the original owner doesn't make a complaint of theft, the current owner is not out of pocket. What takes precedence - civil or criminal? In the case of a car, the criminal process has to be completed, and then a judgement is made as to who gets the vehicle and who gets financially compensated, and how.
 
But you would need to get the original owner to sign the horse over to you for free...otherwise you are doing exactly what the dealer has purported to do and selling without legal ownership.
 
If I sold the OP Tower Bridge, it would not belong to her because I have no title to Tower Bridge that I can convey to her!

The horse still belongs to the original owner.

The dealer certainly looks to be guilty of fraud. But the OP also has an action against the dealer for damages.The OP should sue for all expenses incurred that will put her in the position she was in before the swap took place, in as far as money can do that, plus the value of the horse that was part exchanged. The original owner should also sue the dealer because she, too, would seem to have suffered losses depending on the terms of the loan.

Another non-solicitor so the above opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it!.
 
There are far too many 'ifs', and it is a minefield. IF the original owner, were to say 'Bloody horse, I'm glad I got rid, dealer can do what the heck s/he wants with it', then the dealer has done exactly that. Human nature being what it is, and money being involved, I'm sure the original owner would be more of the, 'If s/he's made money out of it - I want it, as it was my horse' For there to be a crime, there has to be a victim, and without the original owner taking 'victim status', surely no other offences arise? I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong - it's just my view on it, and how I would personally have looked at it had it been reported to me. I would certainly be seeking up to date, and qualified, legal advice :)
 
Purchaser knows the owners, old owners they thought!
It was with dealer as this horse was not the easiest horse it was given to the dealer or so purchaser Was lead to believe and the dealer replaced other horse for this horse. When the old owner, well still owner as it seems was told the horse was for sale they said it can not be sold and that they thought it was out on loan to the current person who has it.
 
Snow steps said:
The situation

Horses was purchased from a dealer. Horse was not fit for purpose. Dealer replaced with another horse. Owner now wants to sell the said horse from dealer after a couple of years of "ownership" and it has now come to light that the dealer did not in fact own the horse that was the replacement horse he only had it on loan. What is the legal position on this? Does the horse need to go back to the dealer or owner? What about the £1500 that was given to the dealer in the first instance for the original horse?
Click to expand...
No receipt after payment? No transfering of ownership on the passport? You're up ***** creek. The dealer had no rights to "sell" said horse. The owners still own the horse. IME, the police have more pressing matters to attend to. I would suggest civil action against the dealer. But firstly make an appointment with a decent solicitor.
 
A lot doesn't stack up here. Since when does a dealer take a horse on loan? a £1500 horse. What age is the horse? . Who has the Passport ? Can the supposed owners still prove ownership ,and a hell of a lot more money than £1500 has been spent on its keep over two years . Lets not immediately jump to the conclusion that the dealer was crooked , maybe the previous owner is trying it on. All in all it is a mess ,but not just for the current owner. Even the concept of ownership needs careful examination here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top