This is an archived Horseadvice.com Discussion. The parent article and menus are available on the navigation menu below:
HorseAdvice.com » Equine Business and Law » Legal Discussions » Buying, Selling and Leasing »
  Discussion on Buyer wants money back
Author Message

Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2000 - 2:57 pm:

i sold a horse 3 weeks ago i delivered the horse 4 hours away to the new owners who bought him sight unseen the day before i delivered him i had his coggins test done which came back neg of course the next day before i delivered him i had a vet check done on him and his feet done all of this i payed for i delivered him 4 hours away and 3 days later the owner called me back and said the horse was lame he had been diagnosed with navicular they said they had xrays done and now 3 weeks later they want their money back i owned the horse for 3 years and rode him he never was lame or showed signs of this i was in shock he stood on concreat over night at the vets and didnt come lame and the farrier didnt see any signs he had a clean bill of health from both i do not have the money to give them pilus they want the money for the vet bills i did give them a 30 guarentee saying for preexisting injuries i figured it was ok since he was never lame and he got a clean bill of health i have not been aloud to see their xrays or have my own done they want their money back in 3 days or they will take me to court for breech of contract and file fraud charges i dont believe ive been fraudulant i was being honest the horse was never lame they now say i drugged him which i did not i would take the horse back but i dont have the money please help me in scared and dont know what to do

Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2000 - 11:02 am:

yes my husband was presant at the sale the agreement was written stating iw ould give their money back for preexisting conditions i dont think this is becouse he was sound for 3 years the only dealings i had with them prior to sale was on the computer and phone i had the horse listed on the puter and they seen it they never seen the horse till i delivered also they had the horses nerves blocked without contacting me if they knew they wanted me to take the horse back at that time i think they should have contacted me before doing any procedure

Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2000 - 3:34 pm:

I think your circumstance is pretty solid in your favor. If they really push to litigation I would respond with a request for mediation/arbitration. It shortens the process of getting to the bottom of this "nuisnace" stuff.
gg

Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2000 - 4:10 pm:

Nevicular is a pre-existing condition, which, with the xrays proves the horse had it for some time. Horses do not develope nevicular over night. Unfortunately the horse never before showed signs of the problem. It can be years before the horse actually shows evidence of it and comes up lame. I think that the "new owner" did thier own vet check of the horse including xrays as a pre-caution and it was found (and is probably in the beginning stages). If you gave them written consent of a money back garantee on the horse for 30 days, then they had the right to their money, BUT, if they have made an attempt to rectify the Nevicular with that surgical procedure of nerve blocking, then they are not entitled to thier money back because the horse is now past light treatment of this disease (they ruined him perminantly and in so have actually accelerated the progression of the nevicular). Nevicular can be treated by trimming the feet at specified angles etc. and with occassional, mild doses of bute. By doing a nerve block on the horse the horse is no longer is "easy" on the feet and tendons and the nevicular bone wears down more rapidly than it would have with a less severe treatment. (Kinda like, if I bought a car and the alternator went out. I can either call the place I purchased the car from and notify them of the problem and then they can rectify it or I get upset and I place a stick of dynamite under the hood and blew the car up. If I chose the later, am I entitled to my money?).

Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2000 - 2:32 pm:

This discussion is of interest to me. I am looking for a horse for my husband, and last year we found two prospects (young quarterhorse geldings, about 4 yrs). These horses appeared sound on soft footing, but when trotted during the pre-purchase exam they exhibited front leg lameness. We did not buy the horses - did not think it was wise to buy a horse that young which already seemed to have problems (and the sellers were upset, of course, but we had not taken possession of the horses). Now I have another lead on a nice young Paint, which the seller says he will guarantee sound. I asked if I picked up the horse and had him vet checked the same day, and a problem was found, could I return him? The answer was: No, if you vet check him even though I guaranteed him to be sound, then I won't take him back. Does not seem to be much of a guarantee. Obviously, the horse could hurt himself stepping out of the trailer, but the vet would be able to tell if an injury is fresh or not. Anyway, I was just curious how other sellers feel about this "guaranteed sound" statement. Obviously, there can be problems which the seller did not know about, or there can be abuse of the "guarantee".
I have decided the only safe way is to have the pre-purchase exam just before taking possession. No seller has ever offered to do a pre-purchase examination and pay for it.
Any comments?
Lilo

Posted on Thursday, Jun 1, 2000 - 8:30 am:

Strikes me that 'guaranteed sound' isn't a guarantee. (Run away! run away!)

You are right about the timing of the pre-purchase exam. It HAS to be a condition of sale, otherwise why bother?

In my area, the vet-check is one of the ways the vendor tells if you are really serious about the horse. Let's be honest, there are alot of folk out there who would be very happy to waste your time (and your money).

I just don't think it would be workable for the vendor to pay for the vet check for a number of reasons - the biggest being would you really trust the results? Second thing is, for how long would the exam results be valid? How many times would the vendor have to redo the exam? For everyone who expresses an interest? That's a BIG expense!!

Keep in mind the per-purchase examination is for you to get an independent assessment of the animal's health and physical suitablity for your intended use. That's why you need to do it!

Posted on Thursday, Jun 1, 2000 - 2:10 pm:

Cheryl,
Thanks for your response. I did not really expect the seller to do the vet check, but mentioned it because Janelle had done it. I think that is going above and beyond what is expected, and now she is having a rough time of it.
If we want that horse examined, I will gladly pay the 50 dollars to have him transported to the Vet Clinic. However, the clinic is not the one I usually use, so I will have to talk to some people who use it and get a recommendation for a Vet.
I definitely will not buy a horse without a pre-purchase examination - I am not experienced enough.
Lilo

Posted on Monday, Jun 5, 2000 - 7:42 pm:

Janelle,

I have been on both ends of your situation. First, and most important, you need x-rays done with both parties present and make sure they pack the hooves with clay. If you don't pack the hooves, shadows can appear on x-ray and cause mis-diagnosis. I looked at buying a horse the vet was sure had navicular until I realized he didn't pack the hooves. When we re-shot them, they were fine.

I have also sold a horse that I had competed on quite successfully and I guaranteed him to be sound. The people did the vet check with their vet, found some lameness in front foot, and much to my dismay, he had navicular in that foot. He had never limped and had won steadily for 8 months straight. Luckily, we compromised on a reduced rate and are now close friends. She had her vet send x-rays to mine to confirm her findings (at her expense). I reduced the horse from $8,500 to $4,500.

My "guaranteed sound" claim is given with my horse sales to people. They can have their own vet perform vet check within 3 days and serious existing conditions found will warrant my taking the horse back. If you did not give them a dead line to do their own check, this is only problem I see. I would not give any money back until another vet shoots x-rays to confirm their findings in your presence. That is their only option to get their money back at this point. If they really want it back, they will agree to this.

Good luck,
Christi

Posted on Monday, Jun 5, 2000 - 7:57 pm:

Oh, and by the way, I never try out a horse without asking the owners if they have a problem with me having a pre-purchase exam done by a qualified vet, at my expense. Any seller not willing to allow this, even on the day of the sale, is not one I want to deal with.

I use their vet if they are too far from my home. I have not experienced any difficulty when I'm paying a licensed veterinarian with them lying to me. I watch the exam, and if the vet finds area with some soreness, we both agree on whether or not it is something I feel should be x-rayed.

Some common sense has to be used here also though. Many sport horses will have some soreness somewhere and older horses may have the usual beginnings of bone spurs. If they are not limping and have performed successfully, you shouldn't totally rule them out.

I find honest, forward discussion save much grief in both the sales and purchasing of horses. Allow a vet check, give a dead line, and be specific that if horse is injured with broken leg on the way over in "their" trailer, then they own him! Your only guaranteeing him for conditions existing before they load him up.

-Christi
Home Page | Top of Page | Join Us!
Horseadvice.com is a BBB Accredited Business. Click for the BBB Business Review of this Horse Training in Stokesdale NC