billy
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by billy on Sept 29, 2016 8:09:57 GMT
We advertised our horse for sale and a buyer came along and left a deposit subject to vetting. The horse passed the vetting but did have an advisory, so the buyers walked away, however they now want their deposit back. I have told them that if the horse failed the vetting that I would have given the deposit back, but because it passed we were not prepared to do this. They are now taking me to court over this. The deposit was only £250 but out of principal I won't give it back. Any opinions on this, am I right or wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by baileybob on Sept 29, 2016 8:25:45 GMT
I didn't think horses "pass or fail" a vetting. I was under the impression that a purchaser tells a vet what they want the horse for, a vet examines the horse with this in mind and gives their opinion on its general health that day and any issues they have come across and whether, in their opinion, it's suitable for the task the purchaser wants it for. The purchaser then decides if any issues the vet has pointed out are acceptable to them.
If they are not happy with the "advisory" the vet has pointed out through their findings, then in my mind, for those prospective purchasers, the horse has not "passed"....although to another purchaser, it wouldn't be an issue at all.
|
|
billy
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by billy on Sept 29, 2016 9:01:06 GMT
The horse was deemed suitable for pony club activities and signed off by the vet as suitable for this purpose. When a deposit has been taken subject to the horse passing the vet I don't feel that the deposit should be returned, otherwise what is the purpose of a deposit. If you left a deposit on a car subject to it passing an MOT, which it then did with advisories and then decided to walk away I am sure that the deposit would not be refunded.
|
|
|
|
Post by baileybob on Sept 29, 2016 9:15:41 GMT
It's only my opinion...,but in my mind there is a big difference between a black and white pass/fail as per specific parameters set by the government MOT test and the vetting of a living, breathing animal, which will have flaws, the severity and relevance of which are all subjective.
To my mind, it is the purchaser who decides on being given advice by the examining vet, wether they are satisfied that the horse has "passed".
Say for example, I'm looking for an RC horse and the vet says to me, yep, horse is suitable to do all RC activities...it does have a small sarcoid, but it won't interfere with its ridden work etc etc...for me, that horse may not then be acceptable as I don't want to get involved with a horse with a sarcoid before I've even bought it. The next person might not give two hoots it's has a sarcoid and for them it will have passed.
|
|
|
|
Post by sjw87 on Sept 29, 2016 10:31:03 GMT
I agree with above, it completely depends on what the vet found.
If for example the 'advisory' is that there is evidence of sweet itch, a history of laminitis or something else which, whilst it doesn't necessarily prevent the horse doing the required activities but is something that should have been declared at viewing, I would think the purchaser would have a good case for requesting their deposit back. Potentially, if whatever was found was something which the seller knew but didn't declare, the purchaser may even be in a position to reclaim the cost of the vetting if they would have walked away immediately had they known the issue.
Sent from my SM-A300FU using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by catkin on Sept 29, 2016 12:39:00 GMT
A lot will depend on the wording you attached to the handover of the deposit and arrangements after that. I would usually state and passes the vetting to be suitable for the purpose the pony is required e.g. showing, hunting etc. Its not entirely watertight either way, but at least clarifies. I always get a document signed by both parties in situation such as these.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philippa on Sept 29, 2016 12:59:13 GMT
I also agree with BB & SJW. I wouldnt class a horse to have passed a vet if there was a but.......
|
|
|
|
Post by kateanne0 on Sept 29, 2016 15:11:42 GMT
I also agree with BB & SJW. I wouldnt class a horse to have passed a vet if there was a but....... I agree with the above. I would class an advisory as not a clear pass as the vet has noted something the buyers should consider prior to purchase. In previous years it was always 'buyer beware' however, with todays legislation, the private seller or business seller, has to declare if the animal has shown signs of any illnesses and stable vices, together with a genuine assessment of the animals capabilities. If nothing is declared and it becomes clear to the new owners that there was a pre-existing issue, the sellers could fall foul of the law. Quite honestly, if I was the seller this would not be an issue because in my mind the animal was obviously not suited to their requirements and they are entitled to the return of their deposit. |
|
|
|
Post by kateanne0 on Sept 29, 2016 15:14:52 GMT
The horse was deemed suitable for pony club activities and signed off by the vet as suitable for this purpose. When a deposit has been taken subject to the horse passing the vet I don't feel that the deposit should be returned, otherwise what is the purpose of a deposit. If you left a deposit on a car subject to it passing an MOT, which it then did with advisories and then decided to walk away I am sure that the deposit would not be refunded. I think you will find that the potential buyer has the right to walk away because something substantial may have been found to be wrong with the car. This may be something that the seller could not afford to fix or the buyer take a risk on. |
|
billy
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by billy on Sept 29, 2016 17:03:56 GMT
I agree to a certain extent that the buyer should walk away if not happy with the findings, which they did. However due to the horse passing the vetting as fit for purpose, then I don't think they should expect their deposit returned.
On speaking with other people there are not many vets who would pass a horse without notes of their findings, for fear of being sued, and there are not many horses that go through a vet without any further notes being made. The notes on our horse were 1 that he was unshod and a bit sore on our road plainings that we have in the yard, although he had been tried by the purchaser 4 times unshod, and passed all the flexion tests and ridden/lunging tests on vetting, and the purchaser had been told that he was always barefoot in the 2 years that we had owned him. The other was that in between the 2 clefts of flesh in front on the sheath there were 2 tiny nodules - suspected sarcoids. We have owned him 2 years and I wasn't aware of these 2 nodules as they were not visible and it isn't a place where you inspect.
The deposit was paid subject to him passing the vet and to stop us showing him to 2 other parties who had shown interest. I think if I have to sell another horse at anytime then it will be the first person with the payment gets him.
I even offered to draw up a contract with regard to the suspected sarcoids to cover vet bills within 6 months should these nodules change in any way.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on Sept 30, 2016 20:22:23 GMT
I think you should return the deposit, you will certainly get yourself a bad reputation if you do not and I think you will find that the courts will award to the buyer. It will certainly cost you a lot more money if you loose in court.
|
|
|
|
Post by pipandflo on Sept 30, 2016 20:49:14 GMT
I wouldn't touch an animal with a suspected sarcoid and as it's on the certificate it will not be covered by insurance, l would certainly expect my deposit back
|
|
|
|
Post by thatboythatgirl on Sept 30, 2016 20:59:58 GMT
We have a pony with a sarcoid and it doesn't bother him or affect the pony competing (he's off to HOYS next week) BUT
If an advisory is a suspected sarcoid then they have every right to walk away and expect a refund; as much as the pony may still be fit for purpose to do PC activities it is a health concern that would be voided on insurance. Treating sarcoids isn't cheap.
|
|
|
|
Post by hazeysunshine on Oct 1, 2016 12:56:19 GMT
My pony had an advisory of a suspected sarcoid, I was willing to take the risk with him but knocked money off for treatment.
However had I not taken the risk I would have expected the deposit back as it's not a clear pass.
|
|
|
|
Post by honeypot on Oct 1, 2016 13:55:47 GMT
For £250 is it worth the aggravation. I would give them the money back.
|
|
|
|
Post by kateanne0 on Oct 2, 2016 8:16:06 GMT
Contact the other 2 parties, they may still be interested. However, you will now have to declare the 2 suspected sarcoids. This will at least sort out the genuinely interested buyers. Take a photo that can be sent to interested parties prior to viewing so that no one is wasting time.
The foot soreness may not be an issue if the pony goes well on flat grass or a menage surface and on a hack. The lunging on your type of yard surface may bring up an unevenness to any horse. Might be best to take the pony to the vet practice for the vetting as most practices have a decent hard surface.
To spend money on a vetting the party concerned must have been genuinely interested in your pony. They probably have a disappointed child to deal with and also didn't feel confident to take on a potential sarcoid issue without full insurance cover.
Give them their deposit back and move on.
|
|
kirky
Full Member
Posts: 238
|
Post by kirky on Oct 2, 2016 20:52:30 GMT
Reading this I think potential buyers should now include advisories to the vetting so as not to be in a situation like this. They must have been serious about purchase or they wouldn't have paid for a vetting in the first place and I can quite understand them not wanting to take the risk. Personally I would pay the deposit back.
|
|
|
|
Post by bow1607 on Oct 2, 2016 22:07:35 GMT
Personally I wouldn't buy a horse with suspected sarcoids, having had a mare that has had them and what a nightmare they are to treat it just isn't worth the risk!
I think it would be in your best interest to return the deposit, because if it does end up going to court I am pretty sure it will go in the buyers favour and it will end up costing you a fortune (probably more than the pony is for sale for)!
|
|
