Where does she stand legally?
My friend recently bought a horse, which she had vetted and it passed with flying colours. The horse has been in my friends possession for two weeks, only for the farrier to tell her that it has a deformity in it's leg and should never have passed as it is unrideable. I think the yard she bought it from have been giving the vet back handers to pass dodgy horses, as another girl has bought one from the same yard (passed the vetting), only to be told it has a club foot. Where does my friend stand legally and can she take the vet and the dealer to court? What can she claim back?
Answers:
The purchase of a horse like any other product is governed the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (emended 1996). If goods are sold and the seller is dealing in the context of a merchant then S14 of the Sale of Goods Act is applicable - “Implied terms about quality or fitness”.
What does this mean? It means that when goods are supplied under the contract they must meet the standard expected of them. The test is an objective one. A kettle should boil water, a television should have a “reasonable picture”, etc.
If a horse has been contracted for and does not meet the standards of a horse of that type when all matters are taken into consideration then there has been a breach of S14. One would assume that it a horse has a deformity in it’s leg it does not pass the test of “quality and fitness”.
However, in the act it also states that if the goods are examined before the contract is made if a reasonable examination would reveal such a defect s14 does not apply. The law in effect is stating that if you had reasonably examined them and it was clear there was a defect to a reasonable person you have bought them in that condition.
Two points present themselves for further analysis on this question:
1. Was the horse reasonably examined before the contract was made?
2. Would a reasonable examination of the horse reveal that it had a deformity?
If the horse was not examined before the contract was made you can rely on s14. If the horse was examined them the questions needs to be asked would the defect reveal itself? If it did you cannot rely on s14.
What remedies present themselves?
Let’s take a look at the vet. There are 2 ways you could pin liability on him:
1. Negligence
2. Negligent misstatement
Under the tort of negligence a vet owes a duty of care to others who he can reasonable foresee may be injured or suffer loss by his acts or omissions.
I would say that he owes a duty of care to others because it is reasonable that people may rely on his expertise. This is a similar situation to a doctor prescribing drugs or other medication.
If the vet passed a horse with “flying colours” has he breached his duty of care? I think he has because a “reasonable” vet would not pass a horse which he knew was deformed in it’s leg. He has therefore fallen below the expected standard of a person with his skill and ability.
But it does not end there because another important point does raise it’s head. Has there been a “novus actus interviens”. This is an “intervening act” in law which breaks what is known as the chain of causation and does not render a defendant liable.
Has there been an intervening act from the time the horse was examined by the vet which has caused the horse its deformity? If there has the vet is off the hook because he has done everything that a “reasonable vet” should have done.
Negligent misstatement is taken from a famous case of HEDLEY BYRNE & CO. v HELLER and PARTNERS. It makes persons liable for loss of damage suffered by a Plaintiff for negligent statements. These may be financial matters or where reasonable reliance is placed on a statement and then acted upon.
The vet, by informing you that the horse was physically sound, made a statement on which you relied and suffered loss. This is sufficient. Therefore the vet can be sued.
As regards the seller of the horse he may be sued for breach of s14 but only if the goods were examined and a reasonable examination could not reveal the horses deformity.
To summarise:
The vet can be sued either in the tort of negligence or negligent misstatement.
The seller can be sued if there has been a breach of s14.
Good luck with your case!
Tell her to contact trading standards for advice.
also speak to a solicitor.
Time for a lawyer.
Get your friend to contact the vet who vetted the horse, and ask him to do another one, and see what the result is. If it fails, then you have a very good case. If it passes, ask your friend to inform him about the deformity, and then report the vet to the vetting council... you can get this from the net.
Trading standards will also be able to help.
You should first try and give the horse back to them for a full refund. Yes you can take legal action against them and will probably win if you can get the proof of what you say is true. The girl that got a bad horse before you would be an excellent witness to your case. The Vet on the other hand would only be checking for health things and diseases I don't think you would stand much of a chance against them. You might also want to get a second opinion on the deformity as a farrier is not a Vet and that is only a opinion from him or her. Good luck on whatever you decide to do on your circumstance.
your friend can sue the place she bought the horse from and the vet,just so long she has all the correct paperwork.she can claim it was sold under false pretences and claim her money back plus any extra costs that she might of incurred.
I think she has every right to her money back. The goods were usable for the purpose they were intended for. Much like buying a |TV set that does not operate as a TV, or a car without a motor. She should take legal advice though as a matter of course. It's a bit difficult to know the finer points of the law if your not a solicitor. They might prefer to give her money back than to go through a legal case.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: