babycham
Grand Prix Poster
A Genuine "School Master" !!!
Posts: 1,782
|
Post by babycham on Dec 27, 2007 20:00:15 GMT 1
LIKE I SAID. ANY LETTER SEND RECORDED DELIVERY - AS YOU HAVE PROOF THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED IT, YOU CAN SEND IT 24HR ROYAL MAIL, I THINK ITS £1.00. DELIVERED BEFORE 1PM. SO SENT TOMORROW WILL BE THERE SAT MORNING. GREAT IF SHE NOT ANSWERING THE PHONE.
THE HORSE WAS VETTED BY GAIL, BUT ONLY FOR HER PIECE OF MIND. hOWEVER ITS EASIER TO PROVE THE HORSE IS UNFIT FOR THE PURPOSE IN WHICH SHE BOUGHT IT.UNDER 1979 SALES OF GOODS ACT.
WHETHER THE HORSE IS NOW LAME, BUT WASNT WHEN ARRIVED IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, AS THE PONY IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO JUMP OR DO LOND DISTANCE RIDING, IF DRAGGING HER BACK LEG, AS VIDEOS PROVE FROM DAY 1 AND AGAIN 11 DAYS LATER.
YO ARE WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS FOR A FULL REFUND, AND DONT HAVE TO ACCEPT AN EXCHANGE, OR PART MONEY RETURNED. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO IT ALL BACK, AND HAVE THE FREEDOM TO SHOP ELSE WHERE.
THE FACT THAT SHE IS A DEALER IS ACTUALLY IN YOUR FAVOUR, AS SHE DEALS WITH HORSES EVERY DAY, ITS NOT LIKE YOU HAVE BOUGHT HER AT A SALE, AND TOOK A RISK. SO DONT EXCEPT ANY THING LESS THAN YOU WANT IN RETURNING THE HORSE.
ONCE YOU HAVE POSTED THE LETTER, AND STATED THAT YOU REQUIRE A REPLY WITH HER INTENTIONS, VIA RETURNED POST, YOU HAVE TO ALLOW 14 DAYS, THEN IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, YOU HAVE GIVEN HER A FAIR CHANCE TO RECTIFY THE PROBLEM.
SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS, BUT AT WOK, AND HAD STARTED IN CAPS AND DIDNT WANT TO RETYPE IT ALL AGAIN LOL XX
|
|
natalia
Grand Prix Poster
Posts: 2,103
|
Post by natalia on Dec 27, 2007 20:56:14 GMT 1
Sorry, but if I had sold a horse and it had been vetted and sold as sound and when it left had been sound (thats if I could honestly hand on my heart say it was 100%) then I wouldn't be happy about taking it back, as the vet should have picked up on the lameness if there was any (I haven't seen the vids) and if the horse was behaving that badly he should have stopped the vetting, rather than just passing it as fit to purpose. You would deff need blood samples to prove it wasn't buted for the vetting also.
I've just managed to look at your original vids and have seen something like this before, which our vet wrongly diagnosed as OCD of the stifle, horse that had it (it slipped on movement, not every stride but esp on corners and transistions) was only a 3 yr old, was given 6 months off to grow more then brought back in to work very carefully, it turned out to be a muscular problem that improved progressively with work. It WAS very hard to pick up upon, we had 2 vets both giving opinions on it and only noticed it ourselves when the horse had been in work about a month and then turned away and brought back in again. It didn't seem to cause her any pain, and it just felt a little funny, she was turned away again upon vets advice, grew a bit more and then once working properly it seemed to magically disapear! I take it she's a young pony, so I would doubt strongly that there's any medical history that would mean she has done something seriously worng before.
|
|
|
Post by Gail&Merlin on Dec 27, 2007 21:20:11 GMT 1
She is 8 years old natalia, imported a few months ago, so who knows what her history is. my vet couldnt find anything wrong specifically, but wouldnt certify her either due to her behaviour, he said he would come back if i wanted him to but his advice was to return the horse.
|
|
Cheryl Walmsley
No Longer Posts on the DG
This poster can no longer respond to posts or PMs
Hey......I'm eating here!!
Posts: 3,599
|
Post by Cheryl Walmsley on Dec 27, 2007 22:31:33 GMT 1
Buyer beware doesn't count at all, civil law in england and wales places a duty on anyone selling anything to be honest and upfront about it's condition and quality, or in the case of a horse, capabilities.
Babycham, I'm not sure about what you said about it not mattering when the lameness starts, sale of goods act applies to the moment of purchase or delivery, if the horse goes lame once in the care of new owner, without a pre-existing condition, I can't see how that could be the dealer's liability.
If it is a pain issue maybe the dealer had her on bute when you trialed her?
|
|
Cheryl Walmsley
No Longer Posts on the DG
This poster can no longer respond to posts or PMs
Hey......I'm eating here!!
Posts: 3,599
|
Post by Cheryl Walmsley on Dec 27, 2007 22:33:58 GMT 1
ooops, law books that aren't from the current year can be fatal due to regular amendments, so don't take anything as gospel from a book that is older than 12 months.
|
|
|
Post by rach20uk on Dec 28, 2007 2:51:38 GMT 1
Definately put everything in writing for your own records and to pick up any inconsistancies (people lying always contradict somewhere eventually!)
Sale of goods act can easily be argued unless you can prove she was either not sound when you went to collect her or that they had buted her.
She has only shown lame when you have got her to you so the dealer could very well argue she was sound when she left and you wouldnt have a leg to stand on. The 30 day return is in the condition the item/animal/goods left which again can be argued that she left sound and came back lame.
You need to prove that she wasnt sound before she came to you or that the dealer buted her to cover her being uncomfortable. Until you can prove she is not fit for purpose and it is definately something the dealer was aware of then you really are hoping on the dealer playing ball and accepting her back.
Good luck.
|
|
Cheryl Walmsley
No Longer Posts on the DG
This poster can no longer respond to posts or PMs
Hey......I'm eating here!!
Posts: 3,599
|
Post by Cheryl Walmsley on Dec 28, 2007 3:02:25 GMT 1
regardless of the sale of goods act, common law and equity would support anyone who had intentionally been jipped by a dealer. The problem is the evidence, it will be hard to come by.
|
|
|
Post by rach20uk on Dec 28, 2007 3:15:02 GMT 1
Thats would be the problem sherb - Gail needs to prove that the dealer was aware of the problem and that it didnt become a problem at hers which is going to be very difficult unless there is an unsound vetting at the dealers yard, evidence of buting her (blood tests), or a history that the dealer acknowledges. Its a horrid situation to be in
|
|
Cheryl Walmsley
No Longer Posts on the DG
This poster can no longer respond to posts or PMs
Hey......I'm eating here!!
Posts: 3,599
|
Post by Cheryl Walmsley on Dec 28, 2007 3:59:33 GMT 1
yes it really is horrible. if the dealer was buting the horse that would explain it. otherwise it strikes me that it could be something easily solved. either a bump in transit that will solve itself with rest or maybe something similar. although I think people have said that the vid at the dealers yard shows a problem so perhaps that will help.
|
|
natalia
Grand Prix Poster
Posts: 2,103
|
Post by natalia on Dec 28, 2007 8:33:23 GMT 1
I think in this case then your best to call the BHS legal line and see where they think you stand, and maybe go down the route of calling the dealer and saying that she's simply not the horse for you. If they have offered 30 days they should stand by their word. I was under the impression she was a real baby, not an 8 yr old, although a lot of the Haffys that come over are very green to ride as many have just been driven. Really when the vet didn't finish the vetting you should have turned away then, or asked to take her for a week (a good dealer will let you do this and return if its not right). If she is a pure bred imported Haffy then she will be micro chipped, they all are, so you may be able to trace her history theough this even without breed papers. We have had several pure bred Haffys through recently and all are chipped, so you could easily try this. The Haffy passport is also quite easy to understand and they are quite strict on updating it, so I would imagine you will find her history through this if you have it. The problem is without the completed vetting and bloods you have very little to stand on and it puts the dealer in a very strong possition, even if they did knowingly sell you an unsound horse. I would possibly also try and say that the horse is not what you want temprement wise, and maybe try this first rtahe than outright saying thats she's a bit off behind, and go down the suitability route first, ie too strong for daughter, and then say that upon return you think she's off behind, be careful of using the word "lame". I think you may have more luck this way.
|
|
Cheryl Walmsley
No Longer Posts on the DG
This poster can no longer respond to posts or PMs
Hey......I'm eating here!!
Posts: 3,599
|
Post by Cheryl Walmsley on Dec 28, 2007 11:56:08 GMT 1
yes that's useful info Natalia.
|
|
shelley2
Grand Prix Poster
Thats my boy!
Posts: 1,471
|
Post by shelley2 on Dec 28, 2007 12:08:49 GMT 1
sorry to put the boot in but didn't you ride her when you bought her? unsure of the whole story
|
|
babycham
Grand Prix Poster
A Genuine "School Master" !!!
Posts: 1,782
|
Post by babycham on Dec 28, 2007 12:26:48 GMT 1
sherbitdip- I am pointing out that it doesnt matter if lame or not, if Gail intends to return due to the fact that she is "unsuitable for the purpose in which she bought her".
eg, if not suitable for jumping etc. So if thats the grounds she is going down, the lameness is neither here nor there. Just another reason to return the mare. Hope that clarifies what i said. x
|
|
Cheryl Walmsley
No Longer Posts on the DG
This poster can no longer respond to posts or PMs
Hey......I'm eating here!!
Posts: 3,599
|
Post by Cheryl Walmsley on Dec 28, 2007 16:17:44 GMT 1
Oh sorry yes, but I thought the only reason the horse was unfit was due to lameness?
|
|
|
Post by geeup on Dec 28, 2007 16:29:50 GMT 1
trading standrads is very clear, when sold thorugh a dealer its the dealer who is repsonsible to describe it as it is, you are entitiled to money back, its only when sold though private purchase thats its buyer beware. A dealer comes under the sales of good acts as mentioned earlier. Any dealer wanted to trade further in their area will know this.
|
|