Ambers Echo
Still wittering on
I will caveat this by saying I do not know either party ivolved. And as a FB coment notes there are 3 sides to every story: yours, theirs and the truth!
But it appears to be verfied that:
Dealer A sold a horse to dealer B in a Trade to Trade sale.
Horse arrives with a broken shoulder, confirmed on Xray to be an old injury (calcified)
Horse was PTS and dealer B took dealer A to court.
Judge ruled that the buyer had failed to show due dligence by not viewing, vetting or collecting the horse. Therefore claim rejected.
Dealer A is claiming all over SM that she 'won' and the horse was sound on leaving her care, and only inured in transit - which is not what the ruling was. But is does seem a victory for seriously dodgy dealing.
Thoughts?
But it appears to be verfied that:
Dealer A sold a horse to dealer B in a Trade to Trade sale.
Horse arrives with a broken shoulder, confirmed on Xray to be an old injury (calcified)
Horse was PTS and dealer B took dealer A to court.
Judge ruled that the buyer had failed to show due dligence by not viewing, vetting or collecting the horse. Therefore claim rejected.
Dealer A is claiming all over SM that she 'won' and the horse was sound on leaving her care, and only inured in transit - which is not what the ruling was. But is does seem a victory for seriously dodgy dealing.
Thoughts?