|
Post by rach20uk on Dec 28, 2007 23:42:39 GMT 1
She is only unsuitable for purpose because of her being unsound from what we have been told in which case it is all down to proving that she was unsound when she was purchased and that its not Gails fault (as much as we know it isnt you need to prove she was this way when sold)
You couldnt buy a horse to ride, it have an accident a week after you bought it, and then return it as its now not unsuitable for the reason you purchased. You could however get a horse, a week later it is unsound and the blood tests reveal it has been buted when you purchased it, then return it as unsuitable under the sale of goods act.
|
|
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 23:44:52 GMT 1
Yes that's what I was getting at Rach. Can we have an update from the OP?? Hope some progress has been made.
|
|
|
Post by rach20uk on Dec 28, 2007 23:49:53 GMT 1
Yes sherbet you are right hon. You have to prove she was sold unsuitable for the purpose she was purchased (the seller advertising they are suitable for that purpose in writing somewhere as proof too if possible) I had to go through the ins and outs of sales of goods act last year for work (hours of learning what it was all about! Tedious!)
It all stems on proving she was sold with a purpose that she is not able to do.
Gail? Any news hon?
|
|
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 29, 2007 0:21:05 GMT 1
what do you do Rach?? If you don't mind me asking :-)
|
|
babycham
Grand Prix Poster
A Genuine "School Master" !!!
Posts: 1,782
|
Post by babycham on Dec 29, 2007 0:45:31 GMT 1
I had to study sales of good acts as i worked for the citizens advise bureau. Came in very useful as a shop manager too.
Great when complaining about an item that i am returning- especially if refused as in sale, or offered a credit note!!! Then i really stand my grounds lol.
I think all shop managers and assistants shop be aware of sales of goods acts, hence my agruement with comet over a printer/scanner/and photocopier i bought off them, Some snooty sales assistant pointed to a poster on the wall, telling me i had no rights ! and that my arguement was with epson the company that made it !!!!
So i asked to speak to the manager. he stated the same, so i adviced him that under the sales of goods act, my grief is with them, not epson.
I had printed off the sales of goods act, and highlighted all relevant parts.
I suggest he called a staff meeting, to train staff, removed posters, and also i claimed compansation off them for the loss of use (which was to prove a point only lol)
I ended up talking to head office, on the shops phone, and received a full refund, plus a new printer, and set of inks, and a voucher to encourage me to return (in a better mood lol) another day for the sum of £40.
Not bad for a £42 printer that was in the sale!! lol.
If gail bought this horse, for jumping and long distance, but doesnt feel that this horse would be suitable for these uses, then thats a good enough reason. Its an addded bonus that the horse is dragging a leg, which it has done from day one, and videos as proof, and again 11 days later.
I wouldnt walk away- i would stand my grounds, and the grounds are very clear to see. It will be hard to prove where the lameness came from. But not sure if gail had bought it to the attention at the time of viewing??
Either way, its an expensive field orniment, if she doesnt come up right, so now is the best time to stat rattling cages, stating not happy, the dealer was going to come out to see the horse at gails, so hopefully it can be sorted , as i know her daughter loves the horse already.
|
|
babycham
Grand Prix Poster
A Genuine "School Master" !!!
Posts: 1,782
|
Post by babycham on Dec 29, 2007 0:47:47 GMT 1
hi sherbit, Rach works in her mums saddlery. Diane on here -I think you have bought off her,as i remember something about when your hubby placed an order?? cant remember now, as its nr midnight lol. x
|
|
|
Post by Ryan&Dizzy on Dec 29, 2007 0:57:03 GMT 1
i dont mean to be a pain but if she was unsound when she was viewed and still bought how can she then be returned? if it was felt she was suitable upon viewing then isnt the the buyer missjudgemnt rather than the dealer faulsly advertising or selling?
saying that i have a broken horse sat in my field that everybody told me to return and i didnt have the heart to do it... so ive proved im not the bet to be discussing this with lol
|
|
babycham
Grand Prix Poster
A Genuine "School Master" !!!
Posts: 1,782
|
Post by babycham on Dec 29, 2007 1:09:56 GMT 1
I am not sure what was said or discussed at the viewing, or at the time of sales.
If horse has been sold as a jumping horse/longdistance, and not fit to do the job, and the dealer was made clear of their intentions for the horse, then its the fault of the dealer. But if say, they didnt disclose if was for a novice, but then ended up a total nutter,then thats the fault of the buyer. I am not sure what was said, at the time of sales, or the agrrement regarding trials/returning. I guess thats down to gail and dealer to discuss. lolx
|
|
|
Post by Ryan&Dizzy on Dec 29, 2007 1:18:53 GMT 1
but surly a dealer can just say he felt the horse was it to do what it was sold for? i dont understand how the dealer can be at fault in this. if the horse had been buted or doped thats a different story but to me the horse looks clearly not right behind in the vid taken at viewing.
i dont understand equine law at all but i know that i couldnt send Ryan back knowing that i had obviously bought him and viewed him and missed the problem... surly thats my own silly fault for not paying enough attention? i was told by a lawer i had grounds to have returned him.... not meaning to be rude at all but im struggling to get across my point as im tired.
|
|
|
Post by rach20uk on Dec 29, 2007 1:22:55 GMT 1
Im was a finance and office manager sherbet which included all the legal yuck to tell the big bosses where they stood etc. I also studied law when i was younger. The learning about this specifically was when i ran the shop when mum was off on long term sick and it was done by the company solicitors before we took a company to court.
Babycham im not trying to disagree with you on this. Im going off solicitors advice and information and would always take a qualified solicitors advice.
Babycham unless you are missold the item then the sale of goods act is useless. A fault etc can be offered a replacement - if an item is faulty then you must refund or replace. Only if you are missold the item do you have to refund.
If the videos show her before she was moved being unsound then that is proof she was missold and is not fit for purpose but then the arguement is she shouldnt have bought her. If it has only occured at her new yard then unless she can prove the horse was unsound beforehand the dealer doesnt have to do anything as an injury could have been caused in transit etc which means she is not in the state she was sold and that voids the sale of goods act.
|
|
|
Post by rach20uk on Dec 29, 2007 1:24:26 GMT 1
The reason the horse is not fit for use though is her being unsound. Proving she was unsound before she was moved is sales of goods act but then the arguement changes to she shouldnt have bought her.
|
|
|
Post by rach20uk on Dec 29, 2007 1:26:27 GMT 1
((((((((((((((soph)))))))))))))) I know what you mean.
The point is - this horse is only not fit for purpose because of her being unsound so you need to prove she was sold unsound to prove the dealer has missold her. The arguement then changes to that she has been viewed and so she has bought her with that problem.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan&Dizzy on Dec 29, 2007 1:34:33 GMT 1
yer there u go u get what i mean... but if the dealer says he didnt know about the unsoundness then does it still count as being missold if he says he truely believed the horse was fit to jump etc? i was told with Ryan that the onlt reason i could return him was because i had asked at viewing if he had been seen recently by a chiro and the woman said yes and that she would ive the name of the person that saw him... then refused to tgive me that info after perchase. so it was for the fact that this made it seem like she knew there was a problem whereas if she didnt know there was a problem then it would be my own silly fault for buying a stuffed horse!
horses are funny old things!!!
|
|
|
Post by rach20uk on Dec 29, 2007 1:45:18 GMT 1
No. Thats the whole point. If the seller denies knowledge then it needs proving that they were aware and it was happening before she was moved. Once thats proved then the arguement changes to why did Gail buy a horse that was unsound.
|
|
|
Post by gem on Dec 29, 2007 12:29:49 GMT 1
Any news gail? I dont suppose you took a video of jaime riding her when she went to try her did you? that would have been the perfect solution to everyones debate?
The way I understand the law and a quick with with me pal who has just moved into equine law is that I depends entirely on how the horse was sold - If it was sold as seen and teh horse was actually lame when you bought her and you bought her knowing she was unsound or off behind then that actually would weaken your case as the dealer would have grounds to say that nothing was hidden you saw the horse and she was off behind and the buyer felt this would come right for the purpose of teh sale...however if the dealer was selling her for the purpose of jumping 3ft plus lame then she reasonably should know as a proffessional that this horse wasnt suitable and you should be enititled to a refund or exchange.
Im assuming gail that the horse was fine when you tried her ie not coming up short at all? then I would send that letter to the dealer and send her back
|
|