Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Alice said:

> she's already contacted the seller who launched into a
> tirade about how my friend ruined her horse and she
> only sold my friend the horse as a "trail horse" not a
> "dressage" horse. The horse wasn't sold with any
> stipulations as to the work he'd be doing and in fact,
> what is the definition of "trail horse"
The general law of sales (which is probably what would apply here
because there doesn't appear to be any other specific contract) states
that a seller warrants any "product" to be suitable for its intended
use, and that the seller must disclose any information (which s/he has)
which might lead a reasonable person to believe that the product
wouldn't be suitable for this use.

Since you state that intended use was not discussed (by either party),
the intended use becomes a) whatever he was advertised as?? or b) what
any normal person would expect to be able to use a four year old horse
for.  However, in your earlier post you also said that she had a "letter
of soundness from the vet."  No vet worth his salt would write such a
letter without putting something about the intended purpose for which
the horse is supposed to be sound (so she needs to look at this letter).
And, it matters a whole lot just who this vet was working for when the
letter was written.  If the vet was working for the seller and the
seller provided the letter to the buyer (and it turns out that the
letter was a lie), then the buyer can seek remedy from the seller (and
it is up to the seller to seek remedy from the vet).

If, on the other hand, the vet was working for the buyer, then the place
to seek remedy from is the vet who wrote the letter (assuming that she
has evidence from another vet to back up that the vet misrepresented the
condition of the horse).

> She's going to take her to court, but she's going to have to
> have the horse put down before it can be resolved.
She definitely needs to offer the horse back to the seller before doing
this (and work out the money thing later).  The argument she is planning
to make in court is that the misrepresentations of the seller
invalidated the sale.  If this is the case, the horse is not legally
hers to make that decision on.  If the seller is unwilling to take the
horse back, she needs to consult an attorney to find out exactly what
steps she should take before having the horse put down (and I am not an
attorney and I don't know where you live, I just know that there are
lots of nuances of law associated with this, so destroying a horse about
whose ownership is in legal contention without finding out exactly what
the legal ramifications of doing so would not be a wise thing to do).

Deciding to have a horse put down is the responsibility of a horse
owner, by taking on this responsibility, the court may decide that since
she acted like she owned the horse then she has accepted that she DOES
own the horse...and therefore has no remedy to invalidate the sale.

Tell her that putting the horse down before seeking legal counsel would
be a bad idea.  Again, I am not an attorney, and I am especially not up
on exactly what are the legal requirements where this person lives
(since I don't even know), but I do know enough to know that in order to
return a product to a seller and get your money back, you have to have
the product to return :).

If the seller refuses to take back her horse, your friend may have a
better argument for recovering expenses associated with upkeep in the
event that the court agrees that the sale was invalid (so she should
keep track of these expenses).

kat
Orange County, Calif.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

Ride Long and Ride Safe!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=