sold a dud? any legal advise

T

Tootsiepop

Active Member
Joined
12 December 2004
Messages
41
Visit site
Hi - I bought a horse from a lady a few months ago as a "potential" showjumper and I have recently found out that she lied to me when she sold it. She said that she was selling it on behalf of a client of hers and that it had only been broken for 5 weeks and that they had broken it and it was green. It went ok at the trial but it did stop and I put this down to it being "green". I recently met the breeder who is a professional rider and he told me that he sold the horse because it was gutless and would not show jump he also said that he had tried to jump it for a whole season!
I feel that I have been mislead and was wondering if I should confront her about this and also do I have any comeback. Should I try to get my money back or would I be wasting my time? Does anyone know where I stand legally?
Thanks
Toots
 
I can't see how you could have any recourse to be perfectly honest. The seller did not claim anything about it's sj ability, she speculated.

Why don't you just put the training in and see what you end up with?
 
ETS-Just said the same as Tia!.
grin.gif
 
Im not sure where you stand legally as what you have been told by the breeder could possibly be hearsay. However if the breeder was willing, which I very much doubt he would be, to put what he has says in writing you may have recourse against the seller or the sellers agent. Its also very difficult to prove 'potential'. Its not a word I like to see in ads for horses really. Its like saying that I have the 'potential' to run next weeks London Marathon....Im sure I could do it with years of diet and training but to look at me now theres now way....
frown.gif


You would have to prove however that the seller and the agent knew the horses true history and kept it from you/lied about it.

tricky one.

If you are a member of the BHS or have horse insurance you may be able to get free legal advice thrugh them. I am insured with PetPlan and free access to a solicitor (not just for horsey stuff) comes as part of the cover.
 
how long ago was it that she sold it to you? is she a dealer then you can go to trading standards, but i no of a lady who was in a similar postion and the court said the dealer should take the horse back and the dealer to replace the horse with another. BUT would you really want another horse from that dealer??
 
You should have made your own mind up whether the horses was talented, if you didn't see talent/potential why did you buy it?

I do feel lieing about its past may give you something but if it was sold as seen I'm not sure there's anything you can do. How did the advert read? I think that would be your only way of getting your money back if she lied in the advert.

For all you know the fella who you spoke too had overfaced the horse jumpingwise and so this woman turned her away and re-broke her (5 weeks before you tried her). Just one theory.
 
Although the vendor certainly wasn't as honest as she could have been, I would think it's 'caveat emptor' or buyer beware.
To have any legal rights regarding this, you would have to prove that she lied about the horse - can you prove she knew it was ridden for a year? And what exactly does 'potential' mean?
Why not try re-breaking it and teaching it to jump...it's probably been overfaced and is scared. With your patient training it may come right (and that'd show them!)
S
smile.gif
 
I wouldn't have thought you had any recourse for the fact it can't Show Jump as she only said potential. However you might be luckier with trying to say that the horse hadn't been broken in 5 weeks like you were led to believe. Depends what was on the advert, witnesses etc. Were you a little bit suspicous that it was jumping after only 5 weeks of being broken in?
 
It does depend on what you have in writing, if you have a receipt that states the horse has only been broken for 5 weeks and the breeder is prepared to say otherwise, you have a starting point. Also would be helpful if you could find who owned the horse in between.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Were you a little bit suspicous that it was jumping after only 5 weeks of being broken in?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know people who have started jumping 2 weeks after breaking a horse in
crazy.gif
crazy.gif
 
Why dont you write to the lady and explain what you know and ask for a refund. you could take it to small claims if you had a witness to say it had only been broken in 5 weeks and if you can get a statment from the breeder. The lady may well say she was told it had only been broken in as a way out. Your contract is with her.
I think its worth writing to her and letting her know... good luck. You could always sell it on explaining that its not going to be a fab SJ and yu want to do that. Not every one wants a SJ superstar.. good luck
 
I don't know if I'm being daft - but why are you jumping a horse that's just been broken in? Surely you need to get it right on the ground first?
 
[ QUOTE ]
You should have made your own mind up whether the horses was talented, if you didn't see talent/potential why did you buy it?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my take on it too. Under the circumstances you are describing (as opposed to making a claim for a horse being a different age/having a vice/having a dangerous habit etc) I would *think* the law would require you to prove that you bought the horse because of what the seller said: i.e because of the deceit. When really, who ever buys a horse based on the potential that the seller claims the horse has,
crazy.gif
like SM has said, surely you base your decision primarily on what it's like to actually ride!!
 
I would say the only thing that you may be able to argue with is the fact that she said it had only been broken for 5 weeks when it had done a whole season showjumping and was obviously broken ages ago.
 
shame, but i think its just buyer beware..... i bought a loverly horse 2 years ago for 3000, in the winter. but as soon as the summer came he was a very bad head shaker, which really dont bother horses in winter, she wouldnt take my call wen i rang and threatend leagal action, she was a sweet old lady to. just goes to show really, i did however sell him to a lady and i told the truth , i lost money but i didnt care so long as he had a good home, and a nose net.......
 
TBH the majority of horses advertised have their 'potential/ability' exagerated. How many times do you see jumping 1.30 at home - it's never going to do it at a show. Or schooled round an intermediate BE XC - so? I could say that about my horse, would never do it though at a proper BE event. You do need to make your own mind up about a horses ability and see thru all the spin.
 
I bought one that is extremely nappy and if you press the point, rears. He's also quite spooky and not at all what I clearly stated I was looking for. When we experienced problems (even though we allowed him a couple of weeks to settle then started quietly introducing him to work) I contacted the previous owner who denied all knowledge.

I decided to persevere and 18 months later we are steadily building up a partnership, but it'll be a long job.

I didn't send him back as I was worried about where he might end up and he is a lovely horse to handle etc and indeed has much potential.

Legally though - caveat emptor I'm afraid.
 
Agree with the others-buyer beware really!

What did your contract say form the vendor and what did your vet say on the vetting ( I am assuming you not only did 5 stage with xrays etc but put the horse over fences anyway?)

The words potential are the get out-any horse has the potential to do anything with the right rider/horse combination and conditions but then we never do have perfect conditions do we! And what suits one horse may not suit another!
 
See I think your scenario is different from above. A horse being nappy and rearing - what some would consider "vices", is different from a horse not meeting the potential that the seller may have professed/advertised.

When I bought Believe the other week, I got the seller to sign a sale agreement including what she warrants and what she represents.

If Bel hadn't met those warrenties (displayed a stable vice, or proved dangerous to ride) then it would have been breach of contract. A seller couldn't really be legally held responsible if the horse did not meet the "potential" in the same way.
 
I am so sorry to hear that your relationship with your new horse has not got off the ground as you so hoped.

I have to say I agree with everyone else.

The horse world is notorious for slating horses as "No good" etc. I have a list as long as my arm of horses I know that have come good with the right treatment & training.

If you "like" your horse. If he/she makes you happy then invest in a good trainer and get yourself a tonne of patience. (I assume as you were buying a potential show jumper you were well prepared to put in many hours of training)?

If he/she doesn't "float your boat" then you will have to shift him/her on.

I think you will have to call this experience a "steep learning curve".

I hope everything works out for you and I would love it if you kept us posted on your progress?
smile.gif
 
I dont think you have mentioned how this horse is going for you now? unless Ive missed it.

Have you been jumping him then I take it, what is he like?

Saying a horse has potential, well you can say that about any horse, an unbroken wild horse could have the 'potential' to be a top SJ'er !

If the horse was putting stops in at the trial and didnt amaze you, then why did you buy?
 
As she said she was selling "on behalf of a client" she is "trading" which means that you have more comeback than if she was a private seller.

Depending on what you want out of any claim, you'd potentially be looking at a claim under the Misrepresentation Act for either negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation (generally go for negligent - same remedies as fraudulent but much easier to prove), the issue is proving (a) that there was a misrepresentation and (b) that it was as a result of that misrepresentation that you bought the horse.

Documentary proof is much better than your word against hers.

If you do decide to sue, major issue is costs - you may have to pay hers if you sue and lose.
 
Were you having any problems with this horse before you bumped into the 'breeder/pro rider', or has he planted a seed which now makes you feel unsettled?

You don't know that there isn't something going on between the breeder and the dealer,hence why he bad mouthed them, not very professional of him to slag your horse off without seeing the work you've done with it - strange.

How old is the horse now? Is it doing what you would expect it to for it's age?

You could talk to Trading standards but you would have to prove that the dealer actually lied and it will also depend on how many months you've had the horse. Do you want to take the matter up because you're having problems or just because you're racked off that some one 'may' have lied to you?
 
Based on Puppy's earlier comments, I think you could make a case that you bought on the basis of the representation--I might buy a potential showjumper that stopped only 5 weeks after having been broken, but would probably not buy, and certainly would not offer the same money for one refusing simple jumps that had been trained for a year.
However, the legal reality is that in order to do so you would have to prove a) that they could not have honestly believed what they actually said to you, and b) that they expressly represented to you that it had only been backed for 5 weeks. Unless you have proof of both those things, bringing legal action is not likely to get you anywhere.

However, if you work out what you want (to return the horse, reasonable discount on price) you may be able to negotiate with the seller for it. Let them know you have evidence that they weren't honest, and therefore the grounding for a case, and how you would like to see the problem solved. For the sake of their good reputation they may be willing to negotiate.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Based on Puppy's earlier comments, I think you could make a case that you bought on the basis of the representation

[/ QUOTE ]

Really??

See I don't think so, because you would have to prove that you bought the horse as a result of the misrepresentation. i.e You would not have bought the horse, were it not for that misrepresentation. Which I don't think that you could reasonably argue you had done, if the inacurate representation in question is regarding the horse's "potential" or when it was backed. I'm sure you could if it was regarding it's age/competition history/vice free etc.
 
Yeah, I still believe that in certain situations, including the one the OP described, the tipping point in my own mind of whether the horse could have the "potential" despite evidence to the contrary (stopping) would be the length of time for which it had been backed. The misrepresentation leads one to believe that the horse is untried, rather than tried and failed.

However, I think the fact that we can fundamentally disagree on this point goes a long way towards showing that it is not an argument one would want to rely on in court without a good lawyer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top