Sending a horse back to a dealer

JulesRules

JulesRules

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 October 2012
Messages
1,806
Location
Green and pleasant land
Visit site
Just after some advice on behalf of a fellow livery.

After having to have her horse put to sleep a few weeks back, fellow livery with small budget buys cheap horse from a dealer who is also a " family friend" with verbal agreement that horse can be returned if not suitable.

Horse is travelled down to yard (journey of several hours). Horse is stabled overnight and turned out. Livery pootles round school on horse. After a few days it is noted that horse is lame. Vet is called. Vet confirms lameness in both back legs.

Horse was not vetted at purchase. Family friend dealer says horse was sound on leaving her, and she will not take it back.

I seem to remember from previous posts on here that the law in relation to a dealer is different from a private sale.

I have advised the new owner to ask the previous owner to be allowed access to vet records as they obviously believe that the horse was lame prior to sale. I don't know how their vet would know, but they apparently said that they thought the horse may previously have had steroid injections.

Without getting into an argument about the wrongs and rights of buying a horse without vetting and verbal agreements about trial periods etc, does anyone have any pearls of wisdom that may help the new owner?

I feel bad for her as she is a young girl who has just lost her beloved mare and is now having to go through this.
 
BHS helpline.
The law will be mostly on the buyers side I imagine, despite their lack of judgement when making the purchase.
 
Horse Dealers
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 can be relied upon where there are no explicit terms. The main provision of the act are that goods should be of ‘satisfactory quality’ and ‘fit for their purpose’ which is where the requirements of a business sale comes in.

If someone is acting in the course of a business with a view to making a profit or a history of a course of dealings can be shown then section 14 of the act which relates to implied terms about quality of fitness will apply to the sale. The sellers multiple adverts are good evidence of a course of dealing.

They stay in business because no one actually takes any concrete action against them. So they've spent the money, so what, small claims court costs very little to institute proceedings. When you win & get a judgement move the judgement on to the High Court Sherriffs for them to enforce the order. They will either get cash or seize goods to the value of the debt. This service does not cost a vast amount & they do get results. To many people believe what the sellers say about spending the money & haven't got any money to repay. They lied when they sold the horse & they are probably lying now! Get the court judgement & then let loose the sherriffs & go for the jugular!
Read more at http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/foru...gue-Dealers-Staffs-Derbys#s8w4tS5pOxxcOiDo.99


Don't be put off by the other party having a lawyer. I once won a small claims case against a national rail company who came armed with a full legal team. It's all about having good evidence and knowing what matters.
- In your case the seller may deny that she operates as a business and you may be persuaded to believe that this makes it harder for you because the Sale of Goods Act does not apply to private sales. There are two responses to this: 1) Collect all the evidence of the seller's equestrian business activities, via FB, adverts, every tiny thing you can find, lessons, livery, tack for sale, absolutely everything. You then state to the court that you believe the seller's horse-dealing is 'ancilliary to their other equine business activities'. This means that even if it is not a main source of income and the seller only sells one or two horses, it falls under the Sale of Goods Act and you can claim that the horse is not fit for the purpose for which it was sold, i.e. a schoolmistress. You prove that it was sold as a schoolmistress by providing the advert. You prove that it is not fit for purpose by providing a video of it displaying dangerous behaviour or by providing an expert statement from a suitably qualified person, e.g. a BHS instructor. 2) If the Court does not accept that the sale was a business transaction by the seller, then you claim 'Misrepresentation'. This is a powerful claim. 'Fraudulent Misrepresentation' applies if the seller knew of the horse's issues, 'Negligent Misrepresentation' applies if the seller, as she indeed claims, was completely unaware of the horse's issues and advertised in good faith. Misrepresentation applies equally to private sales. With Negligent Misrepresentation the seller must take the horse back and refund you even if she genuinely knew nothing of the horse's behavourial issues. The point is that it was 'misrepresented' as a schoolmistress even if the seller believed this to be true at the time.
- In the meantime just put the horse out at grass somewhere if you can.

Read more at http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/foru...sold-schoolmistress/page2#tYyOxpeibpBXxA5g.99

Private Sellers
A private individual cannot sell a horse who they state is suitable for hacking for example and then be permitted to escape liability of an untruth if the horse cannot be ridden on the grounds they are not selling in the course of a business. If the horse was sold as suitable for hacking and does not match up to this then this can form the basis of a claim whether it was a business sale or not.
 
Some "family friend" that would renege on the deal, whether they thought it left the yard sound or not they should keep to their promise and take it back, it sounds as if it was one they were stuck with and thought letting it go cheap to an acquaintance was an easy way out.

I shouldn't think there will be any veterinary history from the dealers vet, it was probably a cheap p ex that they took in and never did much with, the last actual owners may have given it some treatment then off loaded it when it failed to come right.

I think if they push and threaten to go further, trading standards etc then the dealer may back off and do the right thing, tell them to contact the BHS for advice and keep the dealer informed that they are taking matters further.
 
Thanks all. I will pass all the info on. As far as I am aware the dealer only had the horse for a week or so and knows the person that they had it off.

I guess the real issue comes in proving that the horse is not fit for purpose as apparently it appeared sound when it arrived ( I was on holiday when it arrived, but by the time I came back which was 5 days after its arrival it was lame and they had had the vet out).
 
I agree with "Peter Natt".........

OK so different scenario I know, but there was a dealers yard here in Devon a few years ago who basically sold a horse to someone which was patently dangerous, and the client took them to Trading Standards and won the case. (research "Quarrystone Stables").

Any dealers with even half a decent reputation would take the horse back one would have thought; unfortunately it looks like they saw an opportunity with perhaps a vulnerable buyer to get rid of something that they wouldn't dare to with a more experienced client. Shame on them :(

Tell the dealer what you're intending to do and then if they don't play ball, do it, would be my advice. What is there to lose?
 
I'm not a lawyer but I have sent a horse back to a dealer because it was not as described and as such I have read up a fair bit on this subject.

I am going to go against the grain and say I doubt there is much that can be done, unless the girl can somehow prove that the horse was lame when it left the dealers or that the dealer knew the horse was lame and tried to cover it up ie with the steroid injections.

Cheap horse, no vetting done, nothing in writing about the trial period, horse been at new home a few days and been ridden (from your post sounds like ridden a few times before lameness presents), I would not be confident about winning this one in court.

Unless the vet said this has definitely been going on a while and dealer must have known and treated it?

I also suggest calling BHS legal helpline as they were very helpful for me and will be able to give you much better advice than I can as is a different scenario.
 
It is up to the court to decide, only problem is that it will be the court local to dealer.
It was probably drugged so the vet must certify that in his opinion the horse is not fit for purpose and issues are not new.
Contact former owner.
 
Last edited:
I expect what they will need to prove is that the lameness has not been caused by an accident that has happened since the horse left the dealers yards and that it was a pre existing condition which anyone with knowledge such as a dealer would have been able to notice when the horse came to them.

If the horse was only with the dealer one week and it was not ridden at all during that time and the lameness is only noticeable when the horse is ridden then the dealer may have not been aware that there was a problem or if the horse was doped when the dealer saw it.

I would be surprised if the dealer did take on the horse without seeing it being ridden as it would have been risky that if it was not sound or had a serious ridden problem it would be not very saleable unless they could find someone who did not have the experience to notice it was lame or did not vet it.

I presume the horse was not sold as seen as it seems like the girl did not even see the horse before buying it - a dodgy dealers dream!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top