Thanks to everyone for their opinions, all taken and considered. I do think it best that I stay off this topic now since I have gone to a lawyer, thanks Daventry…good suggestions and probably very wise.
Just a quick story.
I owned a horse (that I had owned for many years, showed extensively etc). One day on a trail ride he stepped in a whole and pulled his shoe. Was off after - thought it was stone bruise from the long walk home without his shoe + pad.
Week later - horse still sore, have the vet out. He does an exam, we find the horse’s KNEE is sore on that same leg. Do x-rays, the verdict is advancing arthritis in the knee.
The horse was sound before he stepped in that hole and pulled a shoe. The arthritis obviously did not happen overnight, yet I wasn’t aware of it until the horse came up lame for what seemed like a very different reason. The knee became an on going issue, requiring injections etc - but the horse was in semi retirement at the time, so an easier pill to swallow.
The point of my story was, I had a horse everyone (me, trainer, vet etc) thought was “sound” - he became unsound, and it really seemed that there was an ACUTE cause, but really, stepping in that hole and wrenching his leg aggravated a long standing, unknown condition.
While this horse may have had arthritis for some time, the seller may have been totally unaware.
[QUOTE=Amoroso;7449514]
Thanks to everyone for their opinions, all taken and considered. I do think it best that I stay off this topic now since I have gone to a lawyer, thanks Daventry…good suggestions and probably very wise.[/QUOTE]
Yep! :yes::yes: As this has now gone to lawyers, it is not your duty to explain details or justify actions to the rest of us! 
[QUOTE=Appsolute;7449540]
Just a quick story.
I owned a horse (that I had owned for many years, showed extensively etc). One day on a trail ride he stepped in a whole and pulled his shoe. Was off after - thought it was stone bruise from the long walk home without his shoe + pad.
Week later - horse still sore, have the vet out. He does an exam, we find the horse’s KNEE is sore on that same leg. Do x-rays, the verdict is advancing arthritis in the knee.
The horse was sound before he stepped in that hole and pulled a shoe. The arthritis obviously did not happen overnight, yet I wasn’t aware of it until the horse came up lame for what seemed like a very different reason. The knee became an on going issue, requiring injections etc - but the horse was in semi retirement at the time, so an easier pill to swallow.
The point of my story was, I had a horse everyone (me, trainer, vet etc) thought was “sound” - he became unsound, and it really seemed that there was an ACUTE cause, but really, stepping in that hole and wrenching his leg aggravated a long standing, unknown condition.
While this horse may have had arthritis for some time, the seller may have been totally unaware.[/QUOTE]
The one main difference is that you had this horse “for many years.” This horse is only 5 yrs old.
If it was 9 or 10 or older, that would be much different.
Curious to hear how this story eventually plays out…
[QUOTE=Crockpot;7449402]
Are “alterated” and “alterating” even words?
I hope not. What do they add to “altered” and “altering”
I’m guessing you won’t find them in any laws or caselaw.[/QUOTE]
Sorry for my misspelling. Altered/altering.
I’m in Ohio. A friend of mine ran in to this same problem when purchasing a horse from out of state. Because she had the horse’s shoes re-set two days after she received him this was the reason sited (by small claims court as sale price of the horse was $1200) in favor of the seller’s right to refuse return of the horse. This has been 6 or 8 years ago so I can no longer remember the case law that was applied. Just the outcome.
[QUOTE=Dressage Fancy;7452131]
Sorry for my misspelling. Altered/altering.
I’m in Ohio. A friend of mine ran in to this same problem when purchasing a horse from out of state. Because she had the horse’s shoes re-set two days after she received him this was the reason sited (by small claims court as sale price of the horse was $1200) in favor of the seller’s right to refuse return of the horse. This has been 6 or 8 years ago so I can no longer remember the case law that was applied. Just the outcome.[/QUOTE]
I can find no reported Ohio case even remotely similar to the facts you describe.
In Kuznik v. Schuckert, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 2991 (Ohio Ct. App., Summit County July 18, 1990) the court upheld a jury verdict where the buyer failed to prove that a horse’s laminitis did not develop post-sale. But that had nothing to do with whether the horse was shod or had its mane pulled post-sale. That’s an evidentiary issue about what a buyer can or can’t prove and has nothing to do with the issue of altering the horse.
I would not take a secondhand account of what transpired in small claims court described by one non-lawyer to another non-lawyer 6-8 years ago as an accurate statement of the law.
I think you missed the entire point of Apps post.
The point is, a horse can look fine, be fine and have hidden things going on that are not apparent.
Because the horse shows arthritic changes in the hock now does not mean that the seller had to know there was something going on when the horse stepped on the trailer. Period.
I assume the OP has checked saddle fit to make sure that is not the reason for the horse not wanting to move, rearing, bucking, etc.
[QUOTE=trubandloki;7452960]
I think you missed the entire point of Apps post.
The point is, a horse can look fine, be fine and have hidden things going on that are not apparent.
Because the horse shows arthritic changes in the hock now does not mean that the seller had to know there was something going on when the horse stepped on the trailer. Period.
I assume the OP has checked saddle fit to make sure that is not the reason for the horse not wanting to move, rearing, bucking, etc.[/QUOTE]
If it was just one limb, with one slight lameness, I could see. But this horse has MULTIPLE issues and at a very young age. Most horses do NOT rear & buck when they have ulcers, as witnessed by statistical evidence that some 50-90% of ALL horses in work have ulcers.
So, also tons of horses pack riders around all the time in poor fitting saddle and don’t say “boo.”
And if a horse is so sensitive that ulcers or poor fitting saddles cause bucking & rearing (or for that matter teeth that haven’t been attended to), the Seller should be well aware of this ultra sensitive disposition if the horse has been under saddle for any length of time.
This is the part of the story that I would want clarified: how much riding had the horse had prior, did the Buyer ever ride this horse, and what sort of questions did the Buyer ask the Seller about how this horse goes u/s. And what were the replies?
Did the Seller breed this horse or have him for a year or so or was he a recent acquisition that she is just purchased for re-sale? If the latter, than I’d look at it differently, but from the OP’s comments it sounds like the Seller had had the horse for some time.
Per the Buyer, the horse is lame in two limbs & has serious, dangerous issues when ridden. Sorry, if the Seller was not aware of at least some of these issues, she really was not paying attention and shouldn’t be selling horses.
Again, we are obviously just getting one side of the story and too many unanswered questions, but the issue is far more than some arthritic changes in one limb.
No…most don’t…but some DO. I have one…a week on GastroGuard…and she was a different horse. It is just something to rule out…that is an easy fix. (as opposed to Kissing Spine…which a lot of horses also have but is only a realy problem in a few. But when it is a problem, it can be career ending.).
My horse, who is a saint, would buck when asked to canter when his hocks hurt. They have to tell us somehow.
He’s fused now, and a happy boy.
[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;7453941]
No…most don’t…but some DO. I have one…a week on GastroGuard…and she was a different horse. It is just something to rule out…that is an easy fix. (as opposed to Kissing Spine…which a lot of horses also have but is only a realy problem in a few. But when it is a problem, it can be career ending.).[/QUOTE]
Again, for a horse that is that ultra sensitive, it should be something the Seller would know.
Yes, for now it’ would be “an easy fix”, but then what about when the Buyer hauls the horse to a dressage show…is he going to have the same reaction? Is he going to have to be on Gastro Guard the rest of his life to keep him tractable u/s? That’s quite the expensive “fix.”
Some horses will react strongly to pain/discomfort…ulcers, poor fitting saddles, unattended dental issues, arthritis, etc etc etc.
But if the horse was being used by the Seller frequently, and well-known by the Seller, then she should have been aware of this propensity.
Again, if the horse JUST was rearing & bucking u/s or JUST slightly off in one limb OR JUST slightly off in another, those would be a different deal.
But you have a young horse with all three issues…that (to me) is a red flag that the Seller may have well been simply trying to pass her problems to someone else.
Yes, there are other possibilities and I freely admit that. But the above scenario is a very likely one.
[QUOTE=vxf111;7452916]
I can find no reported Ohio case even remotely similar to the facts you describe.
In Kuznik v. Schuckert, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 2991 (Ohio Ct. App., Summit County July 18, 1990) the court upheld a jury verdict where the buyer failed to prove that a horse’s laminitis did not develop post-sale. But that had nothing to do with whether the horse was shod or had its mane pulled post-sale. That’s an evidentiary issue about what a buyer can or can’t prove and has nothing to do with the issue of altering the horse.
I would not take a secondhand account of what transpired in small claims court described by one non-lawyer to another non-lawyer 6-8 years ago as an accurate statement of the law.[/QUOTE]
Look, I was there with my friend. As I said small claims court. And I really have no idea if it would have gone differently in a higher court. I do know that with any other merchandise if you alter it and then try to return it you cannot.
And I only pointed this out as something that could come up in the poster’s case.
Why is this in the breeding forum?
[QUOTE=Dressage Fancy;7454623]
Look, I was there with my friend. As I said small claims court. And I really have no idea if it would have gone differently in a higher court. I do know that with any other merchandise if you alter it and then try to return it you cannot.
And I only pointed this out as something that could come up in the poster’s case.[/QUOTE]
As someone actually practices, coincidentally teaches UCC law, and has authored an article on equine sales under the UCC I can tell you that there is no universal rule of law that an “altered” product cannot be returned nor that thing like setting shoes would even be considered an alteration.
What is said/done in small claims court unfortunately may or may not be consistent with the actual applicable legal principles. And you/your friend’s understanding of what happened may be a layman’s sometimes incorrect understanding.
I have to agree with Kyzteke. It’s cheaper to ship the horse back. Buyer beware. Never buy a horse without a PPE. A PPE is a little bit of insurance that would have saved you a lot of money and headache.
Update:
This issue was settled outside of court between the Seller and I, not sure if I can share the details or not legally. Anyhow, lesson learned, will never do that again… Horse has gotten the proper vet treatment and is doing better soundness wise but still has issues undersaddle.
Did you end up keeping the horse?
Hopefully it’s a resolution that everyone is at least somewhat satisfied with.
Thanks everyone. I did end up having to keep the horse, couldn’t work it out to get him returned. Not really happy, but at least I got something to assist with my vet bills and hassle.
The horse is well cared for and really in the end that is all that matters.
