Reasons when its wrong to sell a horse

F

FarthingwoodFox

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 March 2008
Messages
1,911
Location
On a grassy hill
Visit site
Been looking through some ads lately and seeing some right dogs up for sale.

So was thinking - is it wrong to sell your horse if it has something wrong with it?
Should you tell the prospective buyers or not?
If whatever is wrong with your horse ie roach backed etc isnt causing immediate pain or harm to your horse would you tell the prospective buyer that its bad confirmation may cause further problems - or would you leave that up to them to work out??

FWF
 
Any personality quirks, whether good or bad, I would tell the buyer about but as for confirmation and anything else I would expect the vet to notice when the horse was vetted.
 
This is what I think - imagine if everyone said, oh my horse has short pasterns/roach back/short neck blahhdy blah - you'd never sell anything, but then there are some people who are clearly out to fleece you - which isnt fair either.
 
it's "wrong" IMO to sell on anything that is a confirmed rearer, bolter, over the age of 20, to be a "companion", whether due to lameness or "un-rideable" (whatever THAT MEANS!!)..just passing the buck, if you ask me!..something that has a degenerative problem..ie navicular..

there are more..but i'm sure thats enough to be going on with..
grin.gif
 
Personally I would always have the horses best interests in mind.
Selling a horse with something wrong with it does increase the risks of it being handed around a lot, not finding the right home and potentially ending up in a horrible situation. I would therefore make the decision on whether to sell based on what the horse was fit to do and always be honest with any prospective purchaser - I know I would want someone to do the same for me.
With something such as roach back, I would still be honest - if the owners are not aware of the issues surrounding this type of thing they could easily end up putting the horse in a situation of pain.
I am not a dealer so do not look at horses as a way to make money - I look at them as a giving animal with a life of their own and they trust us (most of the time!). My opinion is that we therefore have a duty to try and do right by them as well as any prospective purchaser.
 
It comes down to money and conscience. I was sold a dangerous horse (couldn't stay on it longer than 30 seconds after getting it home) for far too much money. She was sold as not straightforward - but her issues were massively disguised and played down. They probably wanted £5.5K more than they wanted a screwed up, not improving horse, and I don't blame them. So should it now be my problem and a danger to me? Should I send it for sales livery and do the same thing to someone else? Should I have tried to send it back, possibly at a loss in the first place? My conscience says its my problem now, because I know and like the mare, and because she could seriously hurt someone if they weren't competant and prepared for her behaviour. I couldn't disguise problems and sell a horse on, but I fully understand why people can and do - who really deserves problems, but they've got to end up somewhere?
frown.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I would always have the horses best interests in mind.
Selling a horse with something wrong with it does increase the risks of it being handed around a lot, not finding the right home and potentially ending up in a horrible situation. I would therefore make the decision on whether to sell based on what the horse was fit to do and always be honest with any prospective purchaser - I know I would want someone to do the same for me.
With something such as roach back, I would still be honest - if the owners are not aware of the issues surrounding this type of thing they could easily end up putting the horse in a situation of pain.
I am not a dealer so do not look at horses as a way to make money - I look at them as a giving animal with a life of their own and they trust us (most of the time!). My opinion is that we therefore have a duty to try and do right by them as well as any prospective purchaser.

[/ QUOTE ]


Totally agree
 
IMO a prospective buyer ought to be aware of any conformational defects for themselves, they shouldn't need to be pointed out but it is most definitely the duty of the seller to inform of any behavioural, physical problems conformation not withstanding
 
"Right Dogs", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder - who's perfect anyway? I've seen lots of very happy people riding horse I wouldn't want to buy
smile.gif


If the horse is sound and happy then I see no reason not to sell it if you want to, whatever conformation defects it has. If the prospective buyer has it vetted then a vet will tell them if the problem is likely to interfere with what they want to do. But if someone wants, for example, to event at a high level I'd expect them to know enough about conformation to uderstand that for themselves. If they don't, the chances of them riding round Badminton must be pretty slim too
grin.gif


If the horse has known soundness issues or a very difficult temperament - that is different, it would be dishonest not to disclose them.
 
We sold one who reared but only when asked to jump, go x-country etc as he found the pressure just too much. he was great to handle and good to hack out and we were honest from the start with the person who purchased him. sadly I think she wanted something that looked good to show her pals but she assured us she wasn't interested in jumping, only hacking so we thought he'd be suited fine.

Sadly we heard a few months later she HAD taken him to jump (with a friend on board) and he'd done his usual and chucked her off so she sold him on again. We did visit him at the next buyers place and they seemed more knowledgeable and much more suited to him. We believe he was sold on after that though. Dunno where he is now, not sure we should find out although we heard he's gone to a hunting home which would have suited him down to the ground. I think it's difficult, he was no good for us and was wasted at 8 years old (we'd had him since 4) just being a 'spare' horse in a field.

Have another pony we tried to sell but conscience got the better of us, he was/is 'complicated' and we knew he'd just get passed on so he's still with us now 14 years on!
 
Someone i know (complete undeserving b****) sold there pony after it had cut its leg open on barbed wire, the vet had said it would be best if pony wasnt ridden for a few months, she sold pony without telling the buyer this info! SICK SICK SICK!
 
I have only sold one horse that I could have actually kept (I sold my other two because one was far too small for me and the other I could not afford as I just bought my first house 7 years ago) - I sold my mare last year because we did not get on, at all. Im not the greatest of riders but Im certainly not completely sh*t and I sold it because it was absolutely no fun any more and the horse was not performing the job I wanted her to do. She was too mad for jumping so I sold her as a dressage horse as she was well schooled and had lovely paces and shes now doing really well without the stress of jumping, which is what I wanted to do. Im now happy as larry with my little gelding who loves jumping. I think some people frowned on me selling her after 12 months but Id had enough! I think if you dont enjoy your horse there isnt a whole lot of point in keeping them unless its as a pet.

I agree you should keep older horses if you can and that you should be as up front with buyers as possible. But I do agree a vet should be the one regarding confirmation etc, I dont think I know enough about that to advise a potential buyer, but obviously that differs from seller to seller.
 
'it's "wrong" IMO to sell on anything that is a confirmed rearer, bolter, over the age of 20, to be a "companion", whether due to lameness or "un-rideable" (whatever THAT MEANS!!)..just passing the buck, if you ask me!..something that has a degenerative problem..ie navicular.'
NP-so anything that is known to rear? I can give examples of several..all competition animals who can rear/nap..if the new rider is capable, why not?
I dont think it is wrong if you make every effort to get a good home to sell as companion etc., I would personally loan but thats me. There are always various reasons for sale. Its not black and white
 
I think if your honest about everything you cant go far wrong..we've always told more than we should to buyers..and I get accused of being too negative, only one sale turned out bad so far.
 
i sold a horse with shivers due to not having the time to give him the work he needed (exercising wise) but i felt i had done my best for him (shivers was diagnosed after i bought him) and he left in the best fitness he could and a very happy horse with me thinking he was going to a good home, iv since found out he was left standing in a field for months because new owner 'lost interest' so a girl bought him to save him without being told about the condition, she then contacted me about him and i was as honest with her as i had been with people i sold him too, i offered to buy him back from her but she wanted too much money (she bought him for double what i sold him for and wanted her money back)!! i presume he's now been sold on again as i cant get in contact with this girl, it had me upset for weeks and i really wish id never sold him in the first place, he'd have been better off with less exercise than bieng passed around to then more than likely end up in a bad place - i think we all know what i mean by that. my poor boy!
 
So would it be wrong to rehome Ty for a minimal amount to someone who just wants to hack around but have a pretty looking horse? And would it be wrong if I took my time finding the right person?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top