Does she have a case to sue me re: horse sale?

Question

I sold and delivered a horse (Rummy) on 28th June to Anne for £2,600. My advert advised that he was good to shoe and box.

At the time of sale he had shoes on (which had been provided by his previous loan home, Georgina, which were 2/3 weeks old).

Before Anne bought him, she visited him four times - first just to see him, then two go out on a hack with him, then her friend and her spent the afternoon testing him etc, then she had him 3 star vetted. Everything came out good and he was delivered to a temporary home at her friends field whilst she sorted out livery at a local equine college.

We kept in contact, she told me how well they were getting on, going out for hacks, how he was settling into the new fields etc.

I received a text from Anne last friday asking advice with regards to shoeing Rummy - i explained that in the rareity that he played about, we would give him food and he would settle. Anne then confirmed again (by text which i still have) how much she loved him and how well they were getting on together.

Then on Sunday evening, I received a call from Anne saying that we had lied in our advert about him being good to shoe and also about him being good to box. She said that he took an hour to loan into the trailer a few days after he was delivered to the friends field but she didnt tell me at the time. She also said that Rummy had pulled a shoe off after a week and was playing about like mad when trying to re-shoe him and that they were going to have to sedate him to shoe him.

I advised her that he had never ever been bad to load with me or bad to shoe - even the girl who loaned him for 6 months (Georgina) before he was sold confirmed that he was good to load and to shoe.

Anne is now asking that we take him back and refund her money, after 6 weeks of her owning him. I do not have the money anymore as this has been spent on this years hay bill for my horses.

I would like your advise/guidance on where it can go from here. I received an email from Anne today indicating that if this was not settled by me taking him back/refunding then she will take it further.

I am looking for peoples views/comments on whether u think she has a case against me.

I am able to provide statements from Georgina, her farrier and my previous farriers to confirm that he is good to shoe/load.

Also, he must have been shod before last weekend as otherwise how was he able to pull a week old shoe off? she didnt tell me then he was bad? Surely after 6 weeks of having him, she cannot change her mind and demand a refund?

Thanks of your time in reading this!

Answer 1

I'm not a horse expert, but could it be that the animal is just simply not happy in his new home or with his new owner?

As it's impossible to determine what an animal is thinking, so it would also be difficult to sue regarding his changed behaviour.

Could it be that the new owner has just changed her mind and is 'coming it' to get some money back.

As you have testimonials from farriers regarding the animals disposition, I would call her bluff and tell her to launch a claim.

Answer 2

As the previous person said she has not case to sue you.  And if she did start proceedings she wouldn't get too far with it.  She has no case to sue you, i wouldn't worry.

I have horses myself and I know that horses can act differently with different people.  It may just be that the horse needs time to settle in and get used the the major upheaval that has taken place in its life, which this person hasn't taken into consideration.  Or it may be that the horse just doesn't like his new owner as much as he liked you.  Or that the new owner doesn't have the horse skills that you have.

Personally I would keep all texts and emails from this person and make a diary of all the times she has contacted you (if you contact your mobile phone network provider they will be able to give you a print out of all the texts you require.)  I would keep all this as evidence JUST IN CASE she does decide to sue.  But as i say it wouldn't get very far.  THen contact her one last time.  Explain calmly that you sold the horse honestly and she bought it seeing everything as it was.  It is just unfortunate for her, but has nothing to do with you now and that she should stop contacting you.  Then i would stop all contact with her. Ignore her texts, but keep a record of them, ignore her emails, but keep a record of them, and dont answer her calls.

this is not your problem anymore and she cannot make it your problem.

Good luck with everything!

Answer 3

She had no right to sue you since it already 6 weeks ago.

Now why not text her for PAYING up the rented fee back to you as $100 perday for the rent of ur horse.

She had visit him 4 times, and made the deal. once it's deal, everything is closed. even if it happened that ur horse fall sick or dead, it got nothing to do with you.

Maybe ur horse cant get use to the new field and new owner.

Or maybe she's getting sick of it since there's no more fun with ur horse.

It's like buying a 1 year old toliet train dog.

Once stays with you, everything need times for a change. they wont pee in the toliet but anywhere they feel like they want. need times to change it. and horse is not as clever as dog. why why the sue?

Dun worry pal, they cant win in this case.  

Answer 4

At the end of the day only a decision of a Judge matters,  for what it is worth here are my thoughts. I respectfully disagree with JZD ( a lawyer ) and would not be so quick to say the purchaser doesn't have a leg to stand on ( no pun intended ).

I have owned many horses in my time & always understood in the horse world the expression 'good to shoe and box' are considered very important features that frequently make or break a sale. Therefore they will be treated as warranties in the sale and breach of them would entitle a purchaser to reject the horse or seek damages.

I don't know if the warranty has been breached.

Purchasers must have a reasonable time to examine the goods and then promptly reject them if they are intending to do so. You would not expect a purchaser to be testing the truth of the warranty 'good to shoe and box' immediately by getting him shod and six weeks before shoeing, depending upon use, growth, turned out to pasture etc. etc is not too extreme.

You yourself said, ' I explained that in the rareity that he played about, we would give him food and he would settle '. That sounds a bit ominous to me and hints that shoeing is not always as straight forward as you suggest. I'm concerned and the alarm bell is ringing. I appreciate different farriers can have a big influence on how a horse responds.

So where does this take us ? Getting on well, liking the horse, hacking out well are not the issue here, the crunch comes back to 'good to shoe & box'. Is it ?

To suceed in a breach of warranty claim the buyer needs to show: 1) it was a fact and not opinion, 2) they relied upon it, 3) it was a factor in the decision to purchase, 4) she was justified in relying upon the statement.

If the horse won't stand to shoe then its a breach and you are liable, the fact you have spent the money is of no concern to the purchaser. It's your call now on how the evidence supports your warranty 'good to shoe and box'.

Edit: to those thumb downs, please don't shoot the messenger but get your law books out and study the variuous case law aplicable to these situations. 'bombproof', 'safe hack', 'good to box & shoe', 'child's / leading rein pony' , 'schoolmaster', 'free from vices', 'crib biting', 'weaving',are all recognised terms you'll come across when buying horses. ( It is also customary to sell a horse with an halter ! )

See: Schawel v Reade [1913] 2 IR .. a stallion sold as 'perfectly sound' found to be unfit for stud .. damages awarded.

Harling v Eddy [1915] 2 KB a heifer sold at auction 'absolutely guaranteed in every respect'  died afterwards from TB .. damages awarded.

Produce Brokers Co Ltd. v Olympia oil & Cake Co Ltd. [1916] 1 AC .. customary terms of trade ( agricultural ) read into and treated as part of the bargain .

Head v Tattersall [1817] LR 7 Exch. 7 .. a horse 'guaranteed to have hunted with ..'  but it hadn't and although injured after being sold purchaser won.

Newman v Marks & Leros Ltd trading as Sorrel Stables  May 13th 1986 JLR 338.. horse purchased as a 'schoolmaster' but also proved to be 'aged' ..purchaser lost claim about the age on basis it hadn't been a term or warranty.

Answer 5

Your buyer is being irksome you don't have any obligation for your sale

she has just thought twice about spending her money, tell her point blank the deal is concluded, she has adequate time to decide on the deal before passing any money over, tell her to take what ever action she wishes as you will contest it.  My daughter used to keep ponies and you culture them with kindness

Answer 6

The answer is that Anne almost certainly has no winnable case, if she sued you.

She would have to prove that the advert was a deliberate misrepresentation which made her ('induced' her, in legal-speak) to buy the horse.  

But she had tried the horse for herself and pronounced herself satisfied.

If the horse is now difficult to shoe/box, it may be as a result of many things.  It may be it's unsettled, it may be that Anne is not a good horsewoman.

All you can say is that the horse was good for you.

Any claim would be a small claims (the value being under £5,000) so therefore it's a nil-cost regime, win or lose.  

In the absence of an independent horse expert (who'd charge half-the cost of the horse) I can't see how Anne can possibly succeed.