So very cross..........Buying a horse or not!

[Cowpony]

Have people who think there was no contract missed this bit of the original post?

Sounds just like a contract to me, which was reneged on an hour later.


PS when I bought my last I just took a lorry to the viewing

I'd be miffed, but it's still not a contract in legal terms until consideration has passed.

 

[ycbm]

I'd be miffed, but it's still not a contract in legal terms until consideration has passed.

Are you sure about that? I have commissioned a company to make me a bespoke saddle and they have not asked for a deposit. Are you saying that if I now renege on that agreement, they have no right to sue me to recover their costs? As far as I am concerned, the contract has been struck.

I have looked up the law, and as far as I can see the 'consideration' is the full payment for the horse and that and the handing over of the horse mark the completion of the contract. But the contract is in place before the consideration is delivered.

Can a lawyer correct that if I'm wrong, please?

 

[Cowpony]

Well that was what we were taught when I studied law as part of my accountancy qualification. My lawyer (aka my husband) isn't around to ask at the moment. I guess consumer law may have overtaken contract law recently. But on the basis that the OP has no written documentation and hasn't paid anything I wouldn't fancy her chances in court. I've just agreed to buy a lorry. We've agreed a price, I am due to pick it up on Saturday, but if the owner decided to sell it to somebody else tomorrow I'd be upset but wouldn't consider that i had a legally binding contract.

You can have an exchange of contracts, which carry certain obligations, but you can't be forced to complete the contract without consideration. So in your case you may have agreed to pay the full price of the saddle if you pull out. But the OP has no such agreement.

 

[sky1000]

I think you are right, ybcm, there has to be consideration, but it doesn't have to have passed. I think there was a verbal contract made on the telephone. Not that I suggest there would be any point at all in trying to pursue anything. It would be hard to prove a verbal contract, and the horse has now been sold elsewhere, so a third party is involved.

 

[Cobbytype]

Are you sure about that? I have commissioned a company to make me a bespoke saddle and they have not asked for a deposit. Are you saying that if I now renege on that agreement, they have no right to sue me to recover their costs? As far as I am concerned, the contract has been struck.

I have looked up the law, and as far as I can see the 'consideration' is the full payment for the horse and that and the handing over of the horse mark the completion of the contract. But the contract is in place before the consideration is delivered.

Can a lawyer correct that if I'm wrong, please?

Consideration can be described as a promise in return for a deed. The 'consideration' is usually money but can be other trading 'things' (eg. I'll clean your windows if you mow my lawn). A promise to pay is consideration. So, if you agree to sell your horse to me for £5,000 and I agree to buy the horse for £5,000 there is a legally binding contract because I have promised to buy and you have promised to sell.

If I don't pay for the horse you can sue me if you wish, but you would have to show losses (assuming the horse hasn't changed hands). In OP's case her losses might only be her wasted petrol money in viewing the horse and the cost of the telephone call, so perhaps not worth pursuing through the courts

I'm a rusty old lawyer.

 

[gnubee]

Ycbm, you are right. There was offer and acceptance and seller technically in breach of contract. Contract exists before consideration is transferred. They say 'verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on' for a reason though.
Very technically speaking if you could prove the deal was done and got to court before the other person picks up the horse the judge should find in your favour but otherwise you're only entitled to refund of the purchase price (which you effectively have already if not yet paid) and costs incurred in reliance on the contract which may incur any fees paid for trailer rental or vetting, but wouldn't include initial travel or trainer fees as no contract existed at that point.

In short, there was a contract but nothing can realistically be done to enforce it.

 

[sky1000]

ybcm I think you are also right about your own contract. If you breached it the other party would have remedies. If you had paid a deposit that would have protected them a bit, because they would have some money already and not have to sue you for it. Well not for that bit of it.

 

[ycbm]

Thanks, I thought so. There isn't any chance of forcing her to go through with it, of course, nor are there any damages to sure for, because there has been no loss. But I was pretty sure there was a contract. Can't wait for my new jumping saddle to arrive, I've no intention of pulling out of that one!

 

[Cowpony]

Yes, I think you are right re the promise to give consideration, but in this case I think the intention to create binding relations was lacking on the part of the vendor:
"A contract is a legally binding or valid agreement between two parties. The law will consider a contract to be valid if the agreement contains all of the following elements:
offer and acceptance;
an intention between the parties to create binding relations;
consideration to be paid for the promise made;
legal capacity of the parties to act;
genuine consent of the parties; and
legality of the agreement.
An agreement that lacks one or more of the elements listed above is not a valid contract"

 

[Cobbytype]

Consideration can be described as a promise in return for a deed. The 'consideration' is usually money but can be other trading 'things' (eg. I'll clean your windows if you mow my lawn). A promise to pay is consideration. So, if you agree to sell your horse to me for £5,000 and I agree to buy the horse for £5,000 there is a legally binding contract because I have promised to buy and you have promised to sell.

If I don't pay for the horse you can sue me if you wish, but you would have to show losses (assuming the horse hasn't changed hands). In OP's case her losses might only be her wasted petrol money in viewing the horse and the cost of the telephone call, so perhaps not worth pursuing through the courts

I'm a rusty old lawyer.

I should have added that technically OP could ask the court for the remedy of Specific Performance which is at the discretion of the court. This would compel the seller to uphold the agreement. In reality the seller is likely to turn around and say she didn't agree to sell, she said she'd think about it but accepted a better offer later the same day.

 

[ycbm]

Mistake

 

[Cowpony]

But the vendor clearly didn't consider herself bound by the agreement, as evidenced by the fact that an hour later she sold the horse to somebody else.

 

[ycbm]

But the vendor clearly didn't consider herself bound by the agreement, as evidenced by the fact that an hour later she sold the horse to somebody else.

There are plenty of people in the world like her

 

[Cowpony]

Oh yes! Sadly an Englishman`s (or woman's) word being their bond is in many cases no longer the case. I hate not being able to trust people!

 

[ycbm]

I hate not being able to trust people (who are the majority and trustworthy,) because you can't tell them from the ones which aren't. I sometimes take big risks and feel great when they pay off. I once left a couple of strangers, whose car had broken down outside, alone in my house with my house key, so they could leave when the AA came and lock my door after them. It was freezing outside and I had to go somewhere. They left a lovely thank you note. That one felt good

 

[sky1000]

The evidence that we have is that the vendor was in breach of contract (about which nothing can realistically be done), not that there was not one. That the vendor then sold it to someone else does not show that there was no intention to create legal relations.

 

[CarlungM]

If I haven't made a decision there and then and rang later to say I want the horse I have always done an immediate bank transfer of a 10 % deposit to hold the horse.

I guess if the seller had a cash offer and no vetting to concern herself with, it's understandable she would want to sell, especially if no deposit was put down by the OP. Frustrating for the OP I know, but maybe the seller has been let down in the past and that made her decide to take the cash offered.

 

[littlemiss1]

I know how you feel OP i recently viewed a horse which was for sale it took me nearly 3 months to arrange a viewing with very strict times on when we could view. Anyway viewed the horse and left it that i would arrange a second viewing and vetting (at the same time) to then be told "I need to think about if i want to sell" over a week later of hearing nothing i received a text saying thanks but I'm going to keep the horse but thanks for the interest. I just felt completely messed around, surely the seller makes the decision and comes to terms with the horse no longer will be theirs before they advertise it. And if they did not think i was the right buyer for the horse why not just say that at the viewing or later that day when i had left. People say the buyers mess them around but sellers can be just as bad!

 

[Mince Pie]

I am wondering if a deposit was offered and turned down at that point or not though ycbm. Not leaving one either at viewing or transferring one immediately upon the arrangement was always going to be a risk IMO.

Yes, this. She never paid a deposit nor offered to.

 

[cobgoblin]

If you don't leave a deposit then you haven't demonstrated ' intent to purchase'. Telling the seller that you have to consult OH even though you phoned later, still means that no money had changed hands. In other words there was still the possibility that you were a timewaster.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush....and all that.

 

[Roxylola]

To be honest, if I were selling and someone said they had to speak to their OH about the money I would be wondering why the OH had not come to view with them and I would not think they were serious about buying, even if they did ring back

 

[be positive]

I know how you feel OP i recently viewed a horse which was for sale it took me nearly 3 months to arrange a viewing with very strict times on when we could view. Anyway viewed the horse and left it that i would arrange a second viewing and vetting (at the same time) to then be told "I need to think about if i want to sell" over a week later of hearing nothing i received a text saying thanks but I'm going to keep the horse but thanks for the interest. I just felt completely messed around, surely the seller makes the decision and comes to terms with the horse no longer will be theirs before they advertise it. And if they did not think i was the right buyer for the horse why not just say that at the viewing or later that day when i had left. People say the buyers mess them around but sellers can be just as bad!

I would have thought that 3 months to actually get there to view would have suggested that the owner was indecisive and was probably not that bothered about selling, it was highly unlikely that a second viewing would be easy to arrange or may take a similar time to organise, most people would have given up trying after a week or two, I can understand you being upset but think you were unrealistic expecting to get anywhere with that one.

It can be the sellers messing around, the amount that are nothing like they are described being the most obvious, I am currently selling one and messed up the videos which has wasted a bit of time but only a couple of days while more were taken and sent to interested people, we had one low offer which has been declined and will hold out for a good home and a sensible price, it is just as important to me that the home is right as it is to get the money and if that means it takes a little longer then that is fine by me.