ChesnutsRoasting
Well-Known Member
Jondaro, I bet your solicitor is already planning next years holiday
How can you blame the dealer for not doing a pregnancy test when you didn't do one yourself during vetting? Sounds hypocritical.
Solicitor: £200/hour average
Dealer: Sells horse that is as described in all ways other than there is a foal inside.
Dealer innocent until proven guilty.
Assumption: Dealer did not know about foal inside (unless solicitor can prove beyond reasonable doubt that dealer knew this)
Buyer: Not happy with foal inside.
Dealer: Offers full refund on return of purchase.
Buyer: Not happy to exchange the faulty object because they decided they actually quite like the object, just don't want the foal inside.
Dealer: Offers full refund on return of purchase.
Buyer: Sends letter before action.
Dealer: Offers full refund on return of purchase.
Magistrate: ... wtf?! ...
Outcome 1: You win. Given dealer's behaviour VERY unlikely he would be asked to pay your court costs. You receive £700 from dealer .... and pay £200/hour to solicitor.
Outcome 2: You lose. You pay your own and the dealer's court costs.
It's a win/win situation. If you're a solicitor!
So agree. TBH, anyone buying a mare should insist on a pregnancy/suitability for breeding scan, it's their own stupidity if they don't as it would have stopped all this 'attitude' dead.
I echo the other posters after OP's statement of intent and TBH, I hope the dealer comes out on top with this one, the OP is acting shamefully.
ahem....
Costs aren't normally recoverable in small claims track cases...... so win or lose OP will have a bill of about £5000 for attempting to recover £700 - MAKES SENSE!!!
What a twonk. You must have been reading a different thread to me then,because this one strongly advises against your intended course of action.
Under the sale of good act the horse was UNFIT for purpose. She is pregnant - she will not be able to perform even light duties for a set period of time. The return & refund is the beginning, and end, of the dealer's responsibility.
How does one expect a dealer to carry out checks on a horse which have already been explained to you are hard to do if not near the beginning or end of pregnancy, and which you yourself admit aren't even carried out on a full pre-purchase examination?
As for setting a precedent, contacting animal welfare groups, MPs etc... get over yourself.
*soapbox down*
I wouldn't be over the moon to get a BOGOF, it's true. Many places don't have facilities for a mare with foal at foot or the facilities for weaning, while I don't think I've got enough experience to educate a baby. But if I had bought an in-foal mare, I like to think that I would do my very best for that horse that I've grown attached to rather than throwing my money away on legal advice.
Well, Twiglet, the OP can easily avoid that risk - the dealer offered a full refund on return of the mare... that is the point, regardless how nice or otherwise it is to get a BOGOF![]()
Dear lord - you are the epitome of a nightmare buyerAfter reading the various comments and slept on this, and having spoken with a solicitor who has expertise on the simple principle of the matter, I am even more persuaded that there is a case to be answered and will persue a case against the dealer under the Sale of Goods act. The mare is to all extents 'fit for purpose' as originally advertised and claimed to be by the dealer, therefore returning the mare for my money back is not in fact a remedy; So the legal issue is around the costs incurred by her being in foal. According to the solicitor, the claim is based on 'Damages in liue of recission', with only the actual costs that have been directly incurred being sought (approx £700),
I think the OP should give the mare back and give up on riding horses...
If this is how Sue-Happy she gets over a BOGOF, imagine how much her soliciter is going to love her when she falls off...