# Agreed purchase price, but seller sold to someone else!



## myhorsefred (26 February 2011)

Am really upset as I type this.

Found a gorgeous horse I wanted to buy with a well known dealer (who usually has a brilliant reputation too!)

On Wednesday I agreed to purchase a horse from a well known dealer, and she agreed to take my horse in part ex.  We agreed to both get quotes for transport.  She did not want a deposit.

I rang and left a message last night to update her on transport dates.

She texted me this morning to say that she has sold to someone else!  Can she do this - we had mutually agreed a deal.

Can i hold her to the sale?


----------



## BSJAlove (26 February 2011)

i have no idea what im talking about but im guessing that unless papers where signed, theres not much you can do


----------



## Booboos (26 February 2011)

I think you need to speak to a lawyer asap. I am not a lawyer but as far as I know a verbal contract is as binding as a written one under UK law. Do you have any witnesses who heard you agree the price etc.? Without a witness is may be harder to prove, and either way you may need to prepare yourself for hefty legal costs if you want to enforce the contract.


----------



## myhorsefred (26 February 2011)

She texted agreeing to the sale, so I guess I have something in writing.  Although, I understand a verbal contract is just as binding as a written one.

I have a text from her anyway, agreeing also to transportation next week, also saying she did not want a deposit.


----------



## scarymare (26 February 2011)

Hmm, she has a business to run I'm afraid and if someone came with the money you can't expect her to hold for you (different if you left a deposit as that is a legal requirement).  So many timewasters view horses and not sure you should have expected her to get quotes for transport either.  Very frustrating though and you have my sympathy.


----------



## myhorsefred (26 February 2011)

Scarymare - she offered to get quotes as she knows lots of transporters.  She freely offered this.  Anyway, i sorted the transport myself.  I am cross that she sold the horse that I thought I was buying in good faith from her.  I offered her three times to give her a deposit, and she said it wasn't needed.  

I am really, really upset.  Just wondering if I can enforce the contract we had.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (26 February 2011)

No, of course you can't enforce the contract!  She has sold the horse to someone else and very likely it has left her premises.As you have incurred no costs, other than those of going to view the animal originally, I can see no point in seeking legal advice.
Yes it is very annoying and if I were you I wouldn't deal with this person again AND I would tell every-one I know about the experience.  That is not a very professional way to run a business.


----------



## Cuppatea (26 February 2011)

yes, a verbal contract *is *legally binding and the text message is proof of it happening. BUT.....is the hassle of going down the legal route worth it?  Your best bet is to phone her a say you are going to seek legal advice and see what she comes up with, if nothing then go see someone at citizens advice and see what they say as to whether you pursue it or not.


----------



## myhorsefred (26 February 2011)

I have incurred costs actually.


----------



## myhorsefred (26 February 2011)

You'd all be surprised if I told you which dealer it was.  I've never heard a bad word about them before.


----------



## Headpiece (26 February 2011)

This has happened to me too. Now I ALWAYS put down a deposit and get a reciept with what has been agreed. A hard lesson, but she would have only sold it to someone else who came up with a better offer, maybe with no exchange.


----------



## fizzer (26 February 2011)

How awful for you, its goes to show TRUST no one when it comes to money when buying a horse.


----------



## myhorsefred (26 February 2011)

I made a point of asking if a deposit was needed (three times I asked), and no that was fine, no deposit needed.

We agreed that we had a deal and that was that.  We even agreed that transport would be next week.

I booked and paid for the transport, which was £600.  And now she has sold the horse to someone else, knowing that I have paid for the transport.  That's not fair.


----------



## Shysmum (26 February 2011)

You need to chalk it up to experience I'm afraid. Don't go naming dealers on here, not a good idea. 

You'll find something soon.


----------



## myhorsefred (26 February 2011)

Not about to name names, but am worried about the £600 I've lost.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (26 February 2011)

Did you pay for the transport in full before they delivered the horse ? Thats unusual isnt it ? Perhaps you can get some of the money back as they haven't had to pay for diesel or their time.
 Really sorry you lost out on the horse, the dealer should have honoured the sale, you've been so unlucky. Were you offered no explaination as to why the horse was sold to someone else ?


----------



## Shysmum (26 February 2011)

I really feel for you too - sort of thing that happens to me *sigh*.

Hope you get the transport refunded.


----------



## JFTDWS (26 February 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			I made a point of asking if a deposit was needed (three times I asked), and no that was fine, no deposit needed.

We agreed that we had a deal and that was that.  We even agreed that transport would be next week.

I booked and paid for the transport, which was £600.  And now she has sold the horse to someone else, knowing that I have paid for the transport.  That's not fair.
		
Click to expand...

Blimey where were you having him brought from?  Alaska?!

Awful situation to be in and you have sympathy, no advice as I don't know anything about this sort of thing though...


----------



## myhorsefred (26 February 2011)

I paid for the transport in full, because I won't be at the yard on the day the transport is taking place. A friend is meeting the transporter for me. 

The reason I had on text this morning was that a good client who she had sold to before wanted the horse.

The transport was £600 because I was paying for delivery of new horse to me, and also returning my horse to the dealer as it was a part exchange. So, a two way journey.

I really trusted this dealer as no-one has had a bad word to say about her, so when she said she didn't need a deposit I didn't worry.  Now I've lost the horse and £600.  I'm gutted.


----------



## JFTDWS (26 February 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			The transport was £600 because I was paying for delivery of new horse to me, and also returning my horse to the dealer as it was a part exchange. So, a two way journey.
		
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I'm a numpty, didn't think about the two way trip...


----------



## s4sugar (26 February 2011)

You should still be able to get all but an admin fee refunded by the transporter but be quick so they can re assign the lorry.


----------



## Trinity Fox (26 February 2011)

I dont think it will be worth pursuing as could cost more if done through a solicitor but i would try and get your money back through small claims for the transport costs especially as you have txts from her as proof.

It is a bit of a dirty trick to play in my opinion any horses i have sold if i didnt take a deposit but had agreed a deal i would honour it especially when arrangements were being put in place it is very unprofessional and makes you wonder if you can take ayone at thier word.

It must also be very dissapointing at now not getting your new horse chalk it up as experience and try to talk to transport company to see what you can get back from them if any and for any outstanding go to small claims.


----------



## myhorsefred (26 February 2011)

Thanks all for your replies.  

I am shocked that this dealer won't honour the deal we had.  I tried numerous times to call today but my calls were avoided and not returned.  I will keep trying tomorrow.

I am tempted to go down the legal route, just because I'm annoyed now!


----------



## perfect11s (26 February 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			Thanks all for your replies.  

I am shocked that this dealer won't honour the deal we had.  I tried numerous times to call today but my calls were avoided and not returned.  I will keep trying tomorrow.

I am tempted to go down the legal route, just because I'm annoyed now!
		
Click to expand...

As others have said its very unbussinesslike  I would make a list of the costs incured and send a bill if you can minimise cost by a refund from the transport do so,  you could  chase them for payment,  small claims if nessary as its not expensive and will give them something to think about  .. but as for going further i think all it would do is make money for the lawyers


----------



## Box_Of_Frogs (27 February 2011)

If a dealer takes a horse in part ex then he/she still has to sell the part ex horse before all his/her money is "in". Anyone coming along offering the full amount in cash is always going to be a better bet. I doubt your dealer had even seen the horse you were part exing so it would have been a risk on her part. Along comes another buyer with no part ex and you can pretty much imagine how things will pan out. She should have warned you that a cash buyer would always take preference over a part ex deal and that if a cash buyer appeared before your actual signing over (papers, passports etc) then the horse would be sold to that person. Sadly, that's how a lot of people do business these days, ie bugger the customer. Also sadly, I don't think you've got a leg to stand on assuming you haven't signed any receipts, change of ownership forms, passports, etc. The dealer is going to argue that the deal isn't done until the paperwork is complete, and your paperwork, as I understand things, isn't even started. However, check the small print with your transporter: the maximum they should be able to charge you is a token amount for admin and, if appropriate, a % for late cancellation. As for the dealer, I'd chalk it up to experience and resolve never to have anything to do with her again. If you're feeling up to a challenge, you could write to her and explain that you are writing an article on unscrupulous business practices for your local paper and please could she explain in detail why she had agreed the sale with you then sold to someone else as you want to make sure you get her side of the story correct.


----------



## Rachaelpink (27 February 2011)

Even if you had paid a deposit she may still of done it. I put £300 deposit on a horsebox from a dealer who then decided not to sell it me and not to return my deposit and when I rang him swore and threatened me. Took him to small claims court and to be honest it was a waste of time. Nothing was in his name so there wasnt anything we could do to get the money back. Still annoys me when I think about it. I'm very wary over any transactions now.


----------



## Clippy (27 February 2011)

Instead of asking if a deposit was needed, for future reference, you should have insisted on leaving one. At least then you have everything agreed upon on paper and signed by the seller. If she refused to take your deposit, that would have been really odd! Maybe the fact that you didn't insist on leaving a deposit gave the seller the feeling you would change your mind?

Regarding the transport, would it not have been much cheaper to get a transporter near you to collect your horse and return with the new one instead of doing the same trip twice?


----------



## Puppy (27 February 2011)

Have you spoken to the transporters about a refund?


----------



## legend22 (27 February 2011)

Clippy said:



			Instead of asking if a deposit was needed, for future reference, you should have insisted on leaving one. At least then you have everything agreed upon on paper and signed by the seller. If she refused to take your deposit, that would have been really odd! Maybe the fact that you didn't insist on leaving a deposit gave the seller the feeling you would change your mind?

Regarding the transport, would it not have been much cheaper to get a transporter near you to collect your horse and return with the new one instead of doing the same trip twice?
		
Click to expand...

I agree. Put yourself in the dealers shoes! Plus I have used a lot of horse transporters (both short and long haul trips) and have never been asked to pay up front! If the dealer called to say the horse had suffered a serious injury / or needed a colic op. would you be so keen to pay for it then?!

Better to get everything in writing and then everyone knows where they stand.


----------



## perfect11s (27 February 2011)

At the end of the day business only realy works on trust...  both parties should stick to what they agreed,   people who do these tricks should be named and shamed it's  only fair if only to stop others having the same problem..


----------



## lea840 (27 February 2011)

I tend to agree that any cash sale would go before a part Ex... but this really should of been explained to you. If this person is a dealer with a good rep, maybe she thought the horse wasn't for you and thats why she didnt take any deposit, just a thought. 

Your main concern tho is contacting the transport company, I think it's highly unlikely to get a full refund as that vehicle would of been booked out of a 'slot of time' and they may have turned other business away for that perido but they should be able to refund less any normal deposit they would of taken, obviously the nearer to the date it is cancelled the less % you will get back. 

I run a transport company and when people have paid in full, which they often do to save time messing around with cash on the day, I will always refund less their deposit, obvioulsy it depends on how close to their travel date they cancel as to what % they get back but they are made fully aware of that in the T&C's of the company... 

Good luck with it all and I hope you're not left too much out of pocket...


----------



## Booboos (27 February 2011)

I think you really really need to speak to a lawyer as what sounds reasonable, fair or moral, may be entirely different to what you are entitled according to the law. Most lawyers should offer you a first consultation for free to establish whether you have a claim.


----------



## myhorsefred (27 February 2011)

The dealer will not take my phone calls now.  She knows she acted dishonestly.

I rang this morning and because my number showed up on her mobile she did not answer.  So I rang from my home phone and a member of her staff answered.  She will not take my call.  How dreadful is that.  I'm in tears.


----------



## MrsMozart (27 February 2011)

There was a contract in place.

Speak to a solicitor.

I deal with business to business, but if I remember rightly - the contract was made, the dealer broke it (doesn't matter about other issues such as other buyers coming along with cash, etc., unless that was stated as part of the deal you did with the dealer), so the dealer has to procure that horse or one the same.

Don't quote me on the above though. Go and get legal advice. If you win the case, you 'should' get your costs back. Depends on all the circumstances.


----------



## myhorsefred (27 February 2011)

Thank you everyone.  Yes, there was a contract in place.  A verbal one, and i have responses on texts which will prove the verbal contract. 

I'm very tempted to name and shame this dealer.


----------



## SJcrazee (27 February 2011)

Move on and find something else, that one wasn't meant to be....as long as you have not paid for transport I wouldn't worry.


----------



## Spyda (27 February 2011)

YOU NEED TO SPEAK TO THE TRANSPORT COMPANY before assuming all your £600 is lost.

Last time I booked a racehorse lorry to collected 5 mares and foals from a stud in Oxford to Devon, I booked, gave instructions where my horses were to be collected. Arranged for the stud manager to meet the lorry and load the horses with their docs and didn't pay anything until the horses were delivered safely to me in Devon. It was COD in my case. 

Most I'd have paid the transport company is a small deposit _before_ the job was done but since you've paid the full amount I'd see if they'll be willing to help you. Try them first.

As for the dealer, I half expect she thought someone else might come along with an offer minus the PTX. Why else would a dealer refuse a deposit. If they 100% expected the sale to go through, they wouldn't have any reason to refuse to accept one. And would _prefer_ to have one incase YOU dropped out and they lost other potential sales. Next time, smell a rat if someone accepts your offer but wont take a deposit.


----------



## lea840 (27 February 2011)

I wouldn't go naming and shaming anyone unless you have your facts 100% accurate regarding this... or it might not just be her who ends up in court! Think carefully before opening your mouth. As upsetting as this may be for you, its not a good road to go down.

For this to be a legally binding contract you have to show 5 things... 

1, A valid offer
2, A valid acceptance
3, Communication of that acceptance
4, Consideration
5, And an Intention to Create Legal Relations (ICLR)

Based on what you have explained its not clear if there is an acceptance of your offer but even if there is an acceptance there is no communication of that acceptance. The acceptance MUST be communicated.
Secondly, there must be consideration. Consideration is usually a deposit but not necessarily so. For consideration to be valid, there must a benefit and detriment on both parties or there is no contract.
Finally, there must be an intention to create legal relations, if the seller had no intention of selling to you then there is no contract regardless of how you may feel about it.

If you got to CAB or a solicitor, they will go through this exact 5 stage process and come up with the same answer based on what you have told us, there is no valid contract primarily because there is no evidence of communication of acceptance and there is no consideration and maybe even no ICLR


----------



## Vicki_Krystal (27 February 2011)

This is awful on you but in this market i can see why the dealer sold the horse.

If she had someone with cash in hand to buy outright, of course its more appealing than a bit of money plus another horse coming in she has to feed and keep before it sells.

Its not right though, specially if she is now ignoring calls.


----------



## perfect11s (27 February 2011)

SJcrazee said:



			Move on and find something else, that one wasn't meant to be....as long as you have not paid for transport I wouldn't worry.
		
Click to expand...

   yes that is the logical thing to do... but...  lt realy hurts when someone pulls a trick like that so I can understand why this person is so peed off ...


----------



## jendie (27 February 2011)

I am sorry for your disappointment. I feel sure you'll be able to get at least mostof your money back from the transporter.

If you feel this is a good dealer why don't you visit to see if there is another horse that suits you? You could then come to some agreement that would take into account the money you'd lost on the transports costs. This time get everything in writing.


----------



## Rollin (27 February 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			She texted agreeing to the sale, so I guess I have something in writing.  Although, I understand a verbal contract is just as binding as a written one.

I have a text from her anyway, agreeing also to transportation next week, also saying she did not want a deposit.
		
Click to expand...

Yonks since I studied law, but it used to be the case that only 'contracts for the sale of land needed to be evidenced in writing' so they are in breach of contract..keep your evidence.


----------



## mcnaughty (27 February 2011)

Very easy to look back on something like this and say "I told you so" but perhaps this should be a lesson to all.  Even if you buy a house - unless you have actually exchanged contracts you can be gazumped at any time during the time leading up to exchange.

I feel you were very previous in booking and paying up front for transport and it also sounds like you were going to buy this animal without any kind of vetting taking place.

You should never ever rush into buying a new horse - every step should be thoroughly thought through or, as you have found out, you can be taken very seriously advantage of by all!

Now - get onto your transport company and demand your money back - we still have not heard an update on this from you so would assume by your silence that you have not bothered to chase them.  Forget about the horse - you are not going to get it now.  What was wrong with the other horse you wanted to PX?


----------



## myhorsefred (27 February 2011)

Thanks everyone.  

mcnaughty - I rang transporter but cannot get hold of him as he is in ireland i think. have left a message though.  transport was due to take place on tuesday of this week.

no, i didn't bother with a vetting, but that's not the issue here.

nothing wrong with my current horse thanks.


----------



## myhorsefred (27 February 2011)

Also, re: example of a house sale above -contract law and land/property law are completely different things.

A verbal agreement stands in contract law and is enforceable, whereas verbal agreements do not stand in land/property law and are not enforceable.


----------



## Vicki_Krystal (27 February 2011)

I have to say that on knowing who the dealer is i am VERY shocked!

They always get mentioned on here as one of the 'GOOD' dealers out there so i can understand the OP being more than upset.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (27 February 2011)

I can understand the OP being upset, I would be too.  BUT what does she think could happen?  The dealer has sold the horse to someone else, who presumably has removed it from the dealer's premises.  How does the OP think that she can enforce the contract, does she expect the dealer to get the horse back from some-one who has paid in full for it, in order to sell it on to her?  I really cannot see that happening, or any judge even trying to enforce that.  
The only thing to do now is move on, learn from the experience and try to get as much money as possible back from the transporter.


----------



## lea840 (27 February 2011)

Vicki_Krystal said:



			I have to say that on knowing who the dealer is i am VERY shocked!

They always get mentioned on here as one of the 'GOOD' dealers out there so i can understand the OP being more than upset.
		
Click to expand...

Everyone seems to have posotive things to say about the dealer in question... 

There are two sides to every story and often when people 'feel' they have been dupped things can easily be over exaggerated when they are upset/disappointed. 

I dont see the dealer as doing anything wrong, see previous post. 

If there is nothing wrong with the horse you have now, why PX it?

I would of been ringing the transporter before today regarding your money back. You dont really seem concered about the £600 you seem more concered about getting her in court, personally I think if you read my previous post regarding the 5 points I dont think you have any realistic chance of getting a solicitor to act for you.


----------



## myhorsefred (27 February 2011)

lea840 - i think i have the 5 points you mentioned above in text form on my phone.  

reason for px'ing not the issue in discussion here.

i did ring transporter before today. could not get an answer.  I tried again this morning - still no answer.  transporter is in ireland - i expect he will ring me back. the whole reason for my concern is because of the £600, not only about getting this dealer in court.  

I will ring an equine solicitr in the morning, as soon as the offices are open.


----------



## Pearlsasinger (27 February 2011)

But the question in the OP was 'Can I hold her to the sale?', not 'Can I expect her to pay the transport costs?'.  Most of the answers have told you that you cannot hold her to the sale.
How does this transporter do business if there is no-one there to answer the phone every day?


----------



## lannerch (27 February 2011)

I would certainly ring that equine solicitor tomorrow, 

I do not know who has a proper legal backround in the answers here however the one I know has some legal experiance reply tells me you certainly need to seek furthur advice as a verbal contract is a binding agreement.

The majority of replies here will be from the likes of me who have no legal experiance and are just posting what they think should be the case call it common sense or not. My instinct tells me the dealer acted very irresponsibly and once a sale has been agreed the horse is not for sale and you are buying it end off!

I have always been paranoid about this happening when I have bought a horse, so much so once I even got my friend to ring up the advert for me to check they said sorry its sold. Luckily I have always bought from as it turns out decent sellers who stick to their word as I do.

good luck and keep us informed as I would be very interested to hear what that advice actually says.


----------



## myhorsefred (27 February 2011)

thanks for your replies.

lea840 - you say you don't think the seller did anything wrong?  

Let me put this to you:

1.  I agree verbally to buy your horse, you accept verbally and also via text.  
2.  We agree that I will travel across the country and pick the horse up later that afternoon.  
3.  I travel seven hours to you to collect the horse and when I get there you say, 'oh, sorry i sold the horse half an hour ago'.  Do you think that is fair?

The only difference in my case is that I was sending someone else to pick up for me and on a different day.


----------



## myhorsefred (27 February 2011)

llanerch - thank you, i will keep you posted.


----------



## SophieLouBee (27 February 2011)

I totally feel for you OP.
I'm very involved in the market and buying and selling (I'm not a dealer btw), this is not unusual, a cash sale will always go through, over a partX. Now although this is totally unfair and it sucks, it's what happens, even with a 'proper' written agreement on occasion. 
With regards to the text messages, yeah they are evidence, but will they hold up? Highly doubt it. I get that you are royally p155ed, I would be too, but you need to take a step back, and think 'Is it really worth my time?'.
You can't get the horse back anyway, if you 'name and shame', you'll probably end up coming off worse and the legal route, well it's rather hit and miss (more miss here IMHO), plus it'll cost you a bomb.

But as numerous people have said, forget about the dealer for now, and concentrate on getting the £600 pounds you have shelled out, back. After all, being horseless and £600 down in the bank is worse than just being horseless, right?

If this were me (has been on a few occasions), I'd chalk it up to experience, and move on. Why waste time, when it could be spent looking for another horse, plenty of fish in the sea etc etc.
Life is too short!


----------



## myhorsefred (27 February 2011)

SophieLouBee - thanks for your comments. 

It is shocking that this regularly happens in the horse world - when you say that a cash sale will always go before a part ex, even if a contract/firm agreement has been made.  Do horse dealers think they can operate outside of the law then?  Surely something needs to be done about unfair/dishonest treatment of buyers in the horse market.

Why is it ok for dealers to treat people like this and accept cash, even though they have agreed a sale previously.  Just because, 'oh well, its the horse world, and that is what regularly happens' doesn't make it right!

Not having a pop at you SophieLouBee - just saying that its not right or fair to agree to sell and then sell to someone else who happens to appear on their yard with cash.  Disgusting.


----------



## sun-shine (27 February 2011)

Been informed by 3rd year law friend, that bearing in mind what you've said you would have a contract, and you should be able to claim for the £600 back plus any other expense you will incur trying to find another horse, such as travel expenses. He's mentioned damages in lieu of specific performance (section 50 of the supreme court act 1981), which it might be worth investigating.

ETA Section 18 rule 1 of sales of goods act says that where there is an unconditional contact for the sale of specific goods (that particular horse) in a deliverable state (it was obviously in a deliverable state because you paid for the delivery and you could have just picked it up), the property (effectively ownership in this case) and the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made and it is immaterial whether the time of payment or the time of delivery or both be postponed.

Please bear in mind this is being dictated over a phone and so if the above is slightly misworded that's why. He's told me to include the following,

Disclaimer: Its from a law student (albeit a very good one) so not intended to be taken as legal advice. He can accept no liability for the statement. 

But that doesn't mean he's not right


----------



## myhorsefred (27 February 2011)

sun-shine - thank you very much.  and can you please thank your law student friend very much also.  i am so grateful.

I doubt I will be able to buy this horse now, but i am tamping mad.  I set my heart on this horse too.  

thanks again sunshine.


----------



## miss_bird (27 February 2011)

I would also be right royally peeved off, i do not know the law so you say yes you had a contract, but you will not now be able to have that horse but the dealer would have to pay you costs if it went to court and i would assume any other cost you incur in the process of find another horse.
I could be completely wrong, just my understanding of matters


----------



## sun-shine (27 February 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			sun-shine - thank you very much.  and can you please thank your law student friend very much also.  i am so grateful.

I doubt I will be able to buy this horse now, but i am tamping mad.  I set my heart on this horse too.  

thanks again sunshine.
		
Click to expand...

No worries  He likes being able to talk about Law so he was quite happy  Do go after them for the transport costs though if you can't get them back. I should start up a racket like that and charge for transport myself. Not give them the horse and keep the transport money. Make enough for a very nice holiday


----------



## scarymare (27 February 2011)

Yes agree that you should go after them for the transport.  If you phone trading standards tomorrow they will dictate you a standard letter and will take on your case - I wouldn't go down the legal route personally.


----------



## mcnaughty (27 February 2011)

I am rather concerned that the OP still seems more angry and concerned about not getting the horse she wanted than the money back from the transporter?  I do not believe there is a court in the land that would uphold a verbal contract of sale - especially when a deposit was refused - perhaps this was the hint the OP needed not to go ahead and book transport.

I mean, who in their right mind would pay cash for a transporter when the sale was not down in black and white?  Surely the OP has to put this down to a very bad and steep learning curve?

What about the vetting of the PX horse?  Was this never discussed?  The whole episode screams of half truths and half promises.

If the dealer was keen to get a sale he/she would have made sure the contract was signed - it is in their interest to tie down the sale.  If they are not happy with the PX then they will refuse deposit and signature of a contract.


----------



## luckilotti (27 February 2011)

over my horsey lifetime so far i have bought 10 horses/ponies - i have only ever paid a deposit for 1!   I have offered to for some of the others and i was told it wasnt needed.  a couple of them it was upto 4 weeks after the sale was agreed when transport took place, and payment made.  (one was actually delivered by the transpost company, then the owners drove over (from the other side of the country) that evening to see she had settled and to collect the money!!!  very trusting sellers!)
I would have been so upset if this had happened with any of mine.  I think it's fair to assume once a sale is agreed that the horse is sold to them and someone can go ahead and book transport etc!
(i have also never had any vetted.... as i know someone posted that not having a vetting could imply that the sale was going to fall through)

I really hope the OP gets some of her transport costs back, and that this dealer now knows how upset you are and hopefully wont do it again to another customer of hers.


----------



## Puppy (27 February 2011)

mcnaughty said:



			I do not believe there is a court in the land that would uphold a verbal contract of sale - especially when a deposit was refused - perhaps this was the hint the OP needed not to go ahead and book transport.
		
Click to expand...

Well (as another law student) I disagree. All the aspects of a binding contract certainly seem to be met, and of course a verbal contract can be binding, so the OP has every right to act in reliance/as if she believes it to be enforceable/going ahead. 




			I am rather concerned that the OP still seems more angry and concerned about not getting the horse she wanted than the money back from the transporter?
		
Click to expand...

Well of course we want contracts to be enforceable when a fundamental condition, a term at the root of the contract, is breached.   Were it just a term that was warranted, then its fair that damages would be all she could expect, but this is the very subject matter of the sale. 

Anyway, OP, if the horse has truly been sold on to some other innocent party now then sadly you won't be able to demand specific performance  but you have every right to be aggrieved that the contract has been breached  

For the record, I personally always insist on handing over a deposit (even though the last two sellers I dealt with said there absolutely was no need) and get them to sign a contract. I've been a gazumped myself in the past, and know how frustrating and disappointing it is. It's a hard lesson learnt


----------



## lea840 (27 February 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			thanks for your replies.

lea840 - you say you don't think the seller did anything wrong?  

Let me put this to you:

1.  I agree verbally to buy your horse, you accept verbally and also via text.  
2.  We agree that I will travel across the country and pick the horse up later that afternoon.  
3.  I travel seven hours to you to collect the horse and when I get there you say, 'oh, sorry i sold the horse half an hour ago'.  Do you think that is fair?

The only difference in my case is that I was sending someone else to pick up for me and on a different day.
		
Click to expand...


Don't get me wrong I do feel for you as it must be upsetting to have something you have your heart set on not work out... 

I dont think you will have a problem in getting most of your money back from the transport company, unless it was cancelled 24hrs prior to said agreement. Have they got a website with their T&C's on? I certainly do and it is made very clear to the customer what is expected of them and what they can expect from me.

Points 2 & 3 above didn't happen as you didnt travel 7 hours and turn up at their yard only to be told the horse had been sold to another buyer, you have been told in advance. To me personally the alarm bell would of started ringing slighlty when no deposit was made, that the dealer made an agreement to PX a horse (yours) without any knowledge of it other than your word, I mean you saw her horse and for all she knew you could of said your horse was a mega star only for it to come off the wagon with 3 legs... Maybe i'm just over careful when it comes to the purchase of things valued at more than my weekly shop lol but to me a dealer agreeing to a PX that she has never seen would of been enough to make me think...! 

I would of wanted something in writing... agreeing to things over text isn't always wise as we all know that not every single text message is recieved on mobiles. I notice that you said you had both agreed to go away and get 'quotes' but you went away and booked your transport... maybe she was under the impression that you would go away, get a quote and she wouldn't hear from you again. It all depends on what texts she got from you and the impression she was under. I'm not taking either side as I don't think all of the facts are on the table and it would be unfair to take a side but from the facts you have said so far I think you might struggle a bit on this one.

It will be interesting to read your update from the equine solicitor your contacting and I do hope that you're not left out of pocket too much...


----------



## Luci07 (27 February 2011)

And, while its of absolutley no comfort to you, thank you for posting this up. I too, would have made that same mistake so thank you for the warnings. I hadn't really given a deposit that much thought before but now I can see its a firm legal statement of intent. Equally, if I do sell my horse then I will also insist on a deposit!

Good luck tomorrow.


----------



## SophieLouBee (28 February 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			SophieLouBee - thanks for your comments. 

It is shocking that this regularly happens in the horse world - when you say that a cash sale will always go before a part ex, even if a contract/firm agreement has been made.  Do horse dealers think they can operate outside of the law then?  Surely something needs to be done about unfair/dishonest treatment of buyers in the horse market.

Why is it ok for dealers to treat people like this and accept cash, even though they have agreed a sale previously.  Just because, 'oh well, its the horse world, and that is what regularly happens' doesn't make it right!

Not having a pop at you SophieLouBee - just saying that its not right or fair to agree to sell and then sell to someone else who happens to appear on their yard with cash.  Disgusting.
		
Click to expand...


It most certainly isn't right or fair! Unfortunately, this really is a minor aspect of what goes on in 'their' world. Hence why I don't think legal action would be of any use, they get away with a lot worse. At the end of the day, they see it as a business, and couldn't give two hoots about you, whoever has the money there and then, gets the horse.
Like buying out of the ring I suppose, highest bidder wins... Very, very different to private buying, and a lot of people go in with the wrong expectations about it. 
But no, OP you are totally right, it is an utter sham, and people shouldn't be able to get away with it.

Luckily not all of them are like this, I know some cracking guys who I've had some fab horses off, they will always advise me against things that 'take my fancy', if they are 'bad eggs', and they will always take the horse back in exchange for another if the horse turns out to be unsuitable. They also transport the horse personally to me, so I don't end up getting caught out there.
It's just having the right contacts I guess.

Good luck with finding another horse, and I hope it works out for you.


----------



## el_Snowflakes (28 February 2011)

Booboos said:



			I think you need to speak to a lawyer asap. I am not a lawyer but as far as I know a verbal contract is as binding as a written one under UK law. Do you have any witnesses who heard you agree the price etc.? Without a witness is may be harder to prove, and either way you may need to prepare yourself for hefty legal costs if you want to enforce the contract.
		
Click to expand...

I know that in Scottish law a verbal contract iss binding (not sure elsewhere) however it would not be worth persuing as legal fees would be expensive and you technically have lost nothing as the horse was never owned by you. 

Morally, what the seller did was not very nice and Im sure I would be upset if i were you too. However, as you had not left a deposit you cannot expect someone to 'keep' the horse for you. I hope you find another one soon. Remember to INSIST on a deposit and get a reciept for it which states SUBJECT TO VETTING

best wishes


----------



## kp31 (28 February 2011)

mcnaughty said:



			I am rather concerned that the OP still seems more angry and concerned about not getting the horse she wanted than the money back from the transporter?  I do not believe there is a court in the land that would uphold a verbal contract of sale.
		
Click to expand...

Now this is where you are very wrong. Some years ago i was sued for this very reason and the other party won. Didn't matter that we had backed out of the deal due to things that came to light afterwards that anyone one in their right mind wouldnt' have bought the horse. Didn't matter that he then sold the horse to someone else for more money! It went to court and the court awarded in favour of the seller. At the same time a few other people were being sued for that very reason, a verbal contract is legally binding!


----------



## Amymay (28 February 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			I have incurred costs actually.
		
Click to expand...

Trading Standards.

Good luck - let us know how you get on.


----------



## ossy (28 February 2011)

Pearlsasinger said:



			I can understand the OP being upset, I would be too.  BUT what does she think could happen?  The dealer has sold the horse to someone else, who presumably has removed it from the dealer's premises.  How does the OP think that she can enforce the contract, does she expect the dealer to get the horse back from some-one who has paid in full for it, in order to sell it on to her?  I really cannot see that happening, or any judge even trying to enforce that.  
The only thing to do now is move on, learn from the experience and try to get as much money as possible back from the transporter.
		
Click to expand...

I do tend to agree with this^^^^ 
Somone else out there has obviously set their heart on this horse too, paid in cash and properly collected it already, do you actually want to put them through something that will make them feel even worse than you do now when they haven't even done anything wrong.  I don't see how you could ever actually get this horse now.  I would go for getting expenses in lieu.  You are not the first and will not be the last person to get gazumped when buying and selling horses, there is obviously a better horse for you out there somewhere you just need to find it.


----------



## OWLIE185 (28 February 2011)

I would contact the transport company and ask them for a refund.
List all your other expenses.
Write to the dealer concerned by Royal Mail Special Delivery asking for your expenses and for valid payment within 14 days.
If they fail to pay up simply take them to the small claims court. Do it on-line as per the below link.
https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome
If they do not settle within the prescribed period of time then ask the small claims court for a judgment.
The debtor will then show up on any credit search.


----------



## Spring Feather (28 February 2011)

ossy said:



			You are not the first and will not be the last person to get gazumped when buying and selling horses,
		
Click to expand...

... or a house, or a car, or a piece of furniture, or appliances ... or anything else really.  If you don't pay upfront or leave a deposit then you have to accept that the goods are not yours until fully paid for.


----------



## polly1976 (28 February 2011)

I have to say I agree with Spring Feather.

I know the dealer, I know the full history behind this story (and that is what it is 'a story') and lets just say 'There are MOST DEF two sides.......


----------



## Puzzled (28 February 2011)

The plot thickens! Would love to hear the other person's side of the story!!


----------



## cazzy (28 February 2011)

Vicki_Krystal said:



			I have to say that on knowing who the dealer is i am VERY shocked!

They always get mentioned on here as one of the 'GOOD' dealers out there so i can understand the OP being more than upset.
		
Click to expand...

I know the dealer in question too and was shocked to read this post, not their normal operating procedure at all.

Was also surprised to see that they offered to part exchange as never known them to do this.   

Did the dealer see your horse you wanted to part ex or a video?


----------



## polly1976 (28 February 2011)

No plot - as Cazzy says above the dealer has never been be known to P/Ex anything, so the 'story' starts there! Not my place to say, just not happy with the comments being written above about what is clearly NOT correct and not what happened at all.


----------



## Madam_max (28 February 2011)

Well I guess we can only hear your side of the story.  All seems a bit odd especially as other people have said the dealer doesn't px.


----------



## lea840 (28 February 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			I will ring an equine solicitr in the morning, as soon as the offices are open.
		
Click to expand...

What did the equine solicitor say that you were ringing this morning... did you get any where??


----------



## Sally-FF (28 February 2011)

Pearlsasinger said:



			I can understand the OP being upset, I would be too.  BUT what does she think could happen?  The dealer has sold the horse to someone else, who presumably has removed it from the dealer's premises.  How does the OP think that she can enforce the contract, does she expect the dealer to get the horse back from some-one who has paid in full for it, in order to sell it on to her?  I really cannot see that happening, or any judge even trying to enforce that.  
The only thing to do now is move on, learn from the experience and try to get as much money as possible back from the transporter.
		
Click to expand...

Agree completely, you are not going to get the horse so why bother with the hassle and costs of going down the legal route?


----------



## Sally-FF (28 February 2011)

polly1976 said:



			I have to say I agree with Spring Feather.

I know the dealer, I know the full history behind this story (and that is what it is 'a story') and lets just say 'There are MOST DEF two sides.......
		
Click to expand...

I guessed as much!!


----------



## kelly kst22 (28 February 2011)

I have not had a lot of luck with horses due to lying sellers, so I was very nervous about parting with more cash when I went to the dealer you are talking about! She was amazingly honest about her stock and matched me to my beast who is perfect for me and my situation and for the price I paid!!
However I couldnt collect him straight away as I had to wait for extra stables to be erected at my yard. The dealer was not fussed about a deposit but I drove back the next day and handed over a small sum of money. I then didnt collect him until nearly 4 weeks later due to unforseen problems, she rung me to say do I want this horse as people are interested I said yes and she continued to keep him for me, charging no extra cost for livery etc and also kept him excercised for me!!
I would definitely go back!


----------



## MissTyc (28 February 2011)

Does the dealer not have a similar horse for you?
That dealer has always loads of horses and no shortage of people wanting to buy them. I know people who have bought from that dealer and have left a deposit after viewing horse. If dealer didn't want your deposit, it sounds like the deal wasn't sealed. You sure no on else was coming to look at horse before final sale decision?


----------



## chocys4 (28 February 2011)

i too have known the dealer in question for many years,and never known her to take p/x's,never! she sells the best horses,will exchange if theres a problem,and will not sell a horse if she doesnt think its suitable. a very reputable dealer,with honesty some dont like!!


----------



## lea840 (28 February 2011)

Sally-FF said:



			I guessed as much!!
		
Click to expand...




polly1976 said:



			I have to say I agree with Spring Feather.

I know the dealer, I know the full history behind this story (and that is what it is 'a story') and lets just say 'There are MOST DEF two sides.......
		
Click to expand...

Polly... There are deffo 2 sides to every story, one is always truthful, the other with the truth twisted to siut that person. From all of the positive comments regarding this dealer my money would be on her side being the more truthful version of events, I mean why would someone damage a good rep for themselves... 

Myhorsefred... you were rather vocal about all of this yesterday in as far as you were actually going to name and shame this women, no you have gone silent. Whats the update with the equine solicitor you were ringing today?


----------



## cazzy (28 February 2011)

When did the 'verbal agreement' take place?   When you went to dealer to view horse or after on the phone?


----------



## el_Snowflakes (28 February 2011)

ok,

not saying what the seller did was right before anyone takes offence. Just wondered what some of you think would happen if the verbal agreement was made then they buyer walked away from it?...verbal agreement not so binding then?


----------



## myhorsefred (28 February 2011)

Well, for whoever it was who posted that this is a story, I just wish you could see my text messages.  But, I'm not really bothered.  I know what happened. 

And I have no idea how people can post and say you know the dealer in question, because i have not publically named and shamed anyone on this thread.

I contacted an equine solicitor this morning.  Agreed that from the evidence I presented them with that I did have a verbal agreement (agreed the price to allowed for part ex, agreed the amount to pay, also agreed that this week is ok for transport, intent etc etc) and i have those agreements also by text.  

I can persue this matter in the small claims court and my solicitor thinks i would have a good chance of winning the case.  My case is helped by the texts I have.   However, some other person has bought this horse and, if a judge found in my favour, I understand that they would be as upset at having to say goodbye to their new horse as I was at having the horse sold from under me.  

They agreed with other legal opinion I had previously obtained that goods pass to the person at the time a contract is agreed (written or verbal) and it does not matter that transportation or payment has not happened.  It is the point of agreeing a contract that is binding.  

I can persue the trader for damages in lieu of specific performance and this is what I am considering at the moment.  My solicitor is waiting to take my instructions on this.  However, I have not been able to speak to the dealer in question yet, only a member of staff on the yard, and I would like to speak to the dealer first before I start proceedings.

I managed to get hold of the transporter and they refunded me on my card, so that's a relief.

No, this dealer does not normally do part exchange, but liked the look of my horse and was happy to take a part ex in my case.  I also have a text to prove this.

I do not make a habit of making up stories on this forum, you can check my previous posts.  I know what was said, and what happened.  

I haven't posted earlier today as I have been really busy.  

I expect some of you will jump on me, as this has been quite a contentious post, and the dealer has a very good reputation, but I now have my legal opinion, which is all I really wanted from this thread.  Thank you for those who posted useful comments.


----------



## myhorsefred (28 February 2011)

polly1976 - you say you know 'the full story' on this.  

How do you know the full story?  Are you the dealer?  Or the member of staff I spoke to yesterday?  Because no-one else knows the full story, because I haven't told them.


----------



## Spring Feather (28 February 2011)

If this is indeed something that can be taken to court then the law is an ass.  Crikey this sort of thing happens every single day, in almost all walks of life and I doubt it even crosses most peoples mind if someone else came along and pipped them to the post.  You snooze, you lose, isn't that the saying?  

A few years ago I test drove a car and liked it enough to tell the car dealer that I wanted it.  He said great and we went to complete the paperwork.  He asked for a deposit, which I gave, and arranged that we come back a few days later to collect the car.  The following morning he phoned me to say that one of the other dealers on the showroom had sold that car to someone else.  Oh well.  I got my deposit back and looked elsewhere for another car.

More recently I went to see some hay.  It was nice hay but was expensively priced, however knowing that hay in large quantities is tough to find I said I would come back and buy some.  Later that day I spoke to someone I know and they put me in the direction of someone else who had lots of hay.  I went to look at his hay which was nice too and was significantly cheaper.  I bought his hay and I have not gone back for the other guys hay.

Come on, these stories happen all the time; stores agree prices with people, the people go off for lunch to discuss buying whatever, they go back to the shop to get the goods, find out that in the time they've been stuffing themselves with delights from the restaurant round the corner, the goods have been sold.  That's the way the cookie crumbles and I really can't see why you are making this into such a dramatic episode in your life?


----------



## cazzy (28 February 2011)

elsazzo said:



			ok,

not saying what the seller did was right before anyone takes offence. Just wondered what some of you think would happen if the verbal agreement was made then they buyer walked away from it?...verbal agreement not so binding then?
		
Click to expand...

this situation of a verbal agreement is no different to when someone agrees to buy a house and six weeks later walks away when they change their mind.  I worked in estate agency for over 10 years and lost count number of times vendor or purchaser changed their mind.  
As the story goes until the money is in the bank....no deal is done. 

To the OP, well done on getting your money refunded on transport.  This should now be end of the matter, you didn't get the outcome you wanted with the horse, but that's life sometimes, doesnt always go the way we want.   Did you incur any other costs that warrant taking this dealer to court?


----------



## Amymay (28 February 2011)

Of course the op could persue the seller for compensation.  How  that makes the law an ass is beyond me.....


----------



## Spring Feather (28 February 2011)

amymay said:



			Of course the op could persue the seller for compensation.  How  that makes the law an ass is beyond me.....
		
Click to expand...

Compensation for what??  She went to look at a horse and didn't buy it.  She booked transport and was refunded the money as no transport needed.  I'd be very surprised if OP buys every horse she looks at.  Does she then ask for compensation when she goes to view a horse that does not turn out to be what she wants?  Good lord, nation of pedantics


----------



## myhorsefred (28 February 2011)

Spring feather - I see where you are coming from re verbal agreements.  Exactly the same thing happened to my husband a few months back regarding a car.  He paid a deposit over the phone for a car at around 4.30pm (dealer was London based).  The dealer rang the next morning to say another salesperson in another dealership (but the same group) had sold the car at 4.35.  

I guess I'm 'making it a dramatic episode', as you say, because
a) the horse was perfect
b) the seller has brilliant reputation
c) I absolutely trusted the seller
d) We had a deal
e) could picture happy times ahead with new horse
f) had told my daughter who was also in tears when it went wrong
and
g) up until earlier today thought I had also lost transport money.

At least I know now that I haven't lost the transport money.  And £600 is quite a lot of money for me!


----------



## MissTyc (28 February 2011)

amymay said:



			Of course the op could persue the seller for compensation.  How  that makes the law an ass is beyond me.....
		
Click to expand...

There is no compensation as there is no loss.

She could go for breach of contract and either push for specific performance or ... I'm not quite sure what else. I doubt the courts will be particularly interested as no money was lost and nobody was hurt. 

The dealer I am sure would provide an equivalent horse for the same price if push came to shove. And then the court would be even less interested.


----------



## starbar (28 February 2011)

Spring Feather said:



			Compensation for what??  She went to look at a horse and didn't buy it.  She booked transport and was refunded the money as no transport needed.  I'd be very surprised if OP buys every horse she looks at.  Does she then ask for compensation when she goes to view a horse that does not turn out to be what she wants?  Good lord, nation of pedantics 

Click to expand...

^^^^ this.  Although I would be mighty p'ed off if it was me.  There is actually nothing to compensate for!  There was no sale, no money changed hands and she has not lost out financially.  The most that she could hope for would be a refund of her travel costs but even that would be tenuous as no sale took place.
Sorry, I think this one just needs to be forgotten about and chalked up to experience.


----------



## myhorsefred (28 February 2011)

Cazzy - the sale of land (and thereby property on that land) is dealt with by a completely separate law, where verbal agreements are not binding and only written agreements are binding.  I would have thought that if you worked in an estate agency for 10 years you might have known that.


----------



## Spring Feather (28 February 2011)

Yeah it sucks, and yes it's unfortunate and upsetting, however that's life.  If all of the people who came to view horses I've had for sale over the years did as they said, that they love the horse and want to buy it, did buy them I'd save myself an awful lot of time and energy .  How many dealers hear these "buyers" want to buy their horses, only to never hear from them again?  It's swings and roundabouts, sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you don't.


----------



## myhorsefred (28 February 2011)

Spring Feather said:



			Compensation for what??  She went to look at a horse and didn't buy it.  She booked transport and was refunded the money as no transport needed.  I'd be very surprised if OP buys every horse she looks at.  Does she then ask for compensation when she goes to view a horse that does not turn out to be what she wants?  Good lord, nation of pedantics 

Click to expand...

Spring Feather - this is where you are wrong.  I DID BUY IT.  I had a firm verbal agreement.  No money changed hands, but it doesn't have to at that stage for it to be legally binding.  That's the thing about a verbal contract.  It is binding at the stage it is agreed, ie the time of the conversation.  Granted there have to be several criteria in that conversation, but a verbal contract is binding.

No, of course I don't ask for compensation on every horse I go and view.  But then I don't agree to buy every horse I view!  i had agreed to buy this horse in question.


----------



## myhorsefred (28 February 2011)

starbar said:



			^^^^ this.  Although I would be mighty p'ed off if it was me.  There is actually nothing to compensate for!  There was no sale, no money changed hands and she has not lost out financially.  The most that she could hope for would be a refund of her travel costs but even that would be tenuous as no sale took place.
Sorry, I think this one just needs to be forgotten about and chalked up to experience. 

Click to expand...

There was a sale.  Not a 'cash in hand' sale as most of you think, but an Agreement for Sale made verbally, which is a sale. Agreed to sell to me at a price.  In legal terms there was even a counter offer made, which was communicated and agreed.  In legal terms, according to my solicitor, the goods were my property at the time the sale was agreed, even though no money or transportation had taken place.  You may think the law in an ass, but that is the law.  There is a legal word for the goods passing at that point to the buyer. I wrote it down when I spoke to the solicitor, I'll get the piece of paper in the morning and post what the legal term is.


----------



## martlin (28 February 2011)

elsazzo said:



			ok,

not saying what the seller did was right before anyone takes offence. Just wondered what some of you think would happen if the verbal agreement was made then they buyer walked away from it?...verbal agreement not so binding then?
		
Click to expand...

I'm also interested to hear views on this...


----------



## MerrySherryRider (28 February 2011)

Spring Feather said:



			Compensation for what??  She went to look at a horse and didn't buy it.  She booked transport and was refunded the money as no transport needed.  I'd be very surprised if OP buys every horse she looks at.  Does she then ask for compensation when she goes to view a horse that does not turn out to be what she wants?  Good lord, nation of pedantics 

Click to expand...

 Very tactfully put.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (1 March 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			I wrote it down when I spoke to the solicitor, I'll get the piece of paper in the morning and post what the legal term is.
		
Click to expand...

Certainly won't be Integrity, its not in the legal dictionary. Where theres a claim.....


----------



## shezza (1 March 2011)

I think it's really awful about what has happened, but why not channel this anger into looking for another horse? Everything happens for a reason and perhaps the money you're spending on legal advice you could put towards your new ned


----------



## myhorsefred (1 March 2011)

Shezza, good point, I will direct my energies to somewhere other than this thread - I am getting slightly miffed at having to explain: 

a) the interpretation and application of the law in this country (i'm only repeating what I was told by my solicitor, who specialises in equine and contract law)
b) whether a 'sale' was made whether money changed hands or not
c) who was in the right or the wrong
d) and defend myself when people think I am 'telling stories'

For the few of you who have posted nasty and negative comments, I now know why I was glad to leave bitchy livery yards behind all those years ago. Thank you.

For those of you who say you know who the dealer is, please be careful not to name any names on this thread.  I haven't named any names on this thread and have been very careful not to.

Thanks for the helpful comments.  Last one out, please turn the light off.


----------



## el_Snowflakes (1 March 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			Spring feather - I see where you are coming from re verbal agreements.  Exactly the same thing happened to my husband a few months back regarding a car.  He paid a deposit over the phone for a car at around 4.30pm (dealer was London based).  The dealer rang the next morning to say another salesperson in another dealership (but the same group) had sold the car at 4.35.  

I guess I'm 'making it a dramatic episode', as you say, because
a) the horse was perfect
b) the seller has brilliant reputation
c) I absolutely trusted the seller
d) We had a deal
e) could picture happy times ahead with new horse
f) had told my daughter who was also in tears when it went wrong
and
g) up until earlier today thought I had also lost transport money.

At least I know now that I haven't lost the transport money.  And £600 is quite a lot of money for me!
		
Click to expand...

glad you got your transport money back  

unfortunatly none of the items on the list above have a monetary value attached and this is what it would be based on in court. Believe me, if you went to see a solicitor you just wouldnt have a case. I have been through a court case involving a horse which we lost ALOT of money and we still have not recouped the costs. Put it down to experience-Put yourself in the sellers shoes, if somene waved cash infront of you and offered to take the horse that day would you not do the same? You had no legal rights to this horse as it was not your 'property' as it were.....also, just wondered if we are hearing the whole story-had you had the horse vetted or were you yet to arrange that?


----------



## natalia (1 March 2011)

Sorry but I don't think you really have a leg to stand on. Coming from the other end of the stick I buy and sell and was recently bitten by a real time waster. They viewed the horse no less than six times, on 3rd time left a cheque deposit (I will take a cheque on trust and in contract that deposit is only refundable on failure of vet) had it vetted (it passed) and agreed to arrange delivery the following week (4 weeks in from first viewing). In the two days following the vetting they turned up again with a PC instructor and I heard nothing from them, put cheque in the bank only to have an email 3 days after the instructor turned up (the day horse was meant to be moved) saying PC instructor thought it was too big and too young for the client and had told them not to buy it. I also was then graced with a returned deposit cheque (they had stopped it which breached contract) and then would not answer my calls or emails. Scum. I had kept horse for 4 weeks with no livery costs, kept it fed, exercised and not shown to anyone else in this period. They also had the cheek to refuse to pay deposit again or answer any phone calls. Someone else has since bought the horse and bought on the understanding that it had passed a vetting, as I'm not the type to take to small claims as hate the hassle I tried to do a deal for the vet cert on the horse and was refused this. So when new purchaser wanted it I gave them the time wasters umber direct as they would pick up to an unknown number, they then had the further cheek to try and ask for cash to release the vets cert! Client thought it better to give them £50 to shut them up and save themselves another vetting but when there are scum like this about looking for horses is it any wonder that a dealer will take a sure cash sale over a part ex and unsure deal. Your horse if taken in part ex could have been anything, might have been a nightmare that dealer was stuck with for months and you might not have been totally honest from the word go about your own horse or abilities. I would always give preference to my existing and returning clients and of course give preference to cash sale and horse out the door. Really you should be thinking lesson learned and next time leave a firm deposit with a written receipt of full terms of sale, inc. if you are doing a part ex details of your horse written on receipt and details of the horse to be purchased. My lesson from my TW's was that now I don't take cheque deposits and will be firmer with time scales, horse vetted within one week of deposit and picked up within one week of vetting, or deposit lost to cover livery. So many people agree to buy horses and then just don't call back, say they love it and then walk away etc. I'm sure if the dealer really wanted your horse and to do the deal they would have been more forceful about taking deposit and would have also viewed your horse first. In my mind the other party had already viewed the horse and were half interested so dealer was going to stick out for cash sale.


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			For those of you who say you know who the dealer is, please be careful not to name any names on this thread.  I haven't named any names on this thread and have been very careful not to.QUOTE]

But that was the very thing YOU were threatening to do to this dealer... Your own post said you wanted to "Name and Shame" her. No you appear to have a change of mind... Hmmm
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Amymay (1 March 2011)

lea840 said:





myhorsefred said:



			But that was the very thing YOU were threatening to do to this dealer... Your own post said you wanted to "Name and Shame" her. No you appear to have a change of mind... Hmmm
		
Click to expand...

Lea, just because someone _wants_ to do something - doesn't mean that they _will_.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Amymay (1 March 2011)

Spring Feather said:



			Compensation for what??  She went to look at a horse and didn't buy it.
		
Click to expand...

On the contrary the OP made a contract with the seller _to_ buy the horse.  The contract was broken by the seller.  The _intention_ on behalf of the buyer was to adhere that contract.  The _action_ of the seller was to break that contract.  

At its most fundamental level, compensation is a legal device by which individuals can receive some recompense, generally financial, for a wrong perpetrated by a third party. This is a basic right in law and the OP has every right to follow this matter through to its conclussion.


----------



## prorider (1 March 2011)

We know who the dealer is because OP mentioned it in an earlier thread about buying a horse.  OP in an earlier thread mentioned possibly buying unseen as she couldn't be bothered to travel 200 miles to see the horse(despite also saying she was a nervous rider).

I know this dealer and its excellent and obviously had severe doubts about whether OP would bother getting the horse therefore sold it to someone it considered a more serious buyer.  Can't blame the dealer for that.

OP has got all costs back (the transport) and is in the same situation as if this did not happen.  Why take legal action?  Just sounds like a waste of money just to be vindictive.

Who hasn't fallen in love with a horse but been unable to buy it?  I fell in love with one that failed the vetting.  Should I have sued the owner because I was upset.  Of course not.

Grow up and move on.

Oh, any by the way OP you had not bought the horse.  You had entered into a contract to buy the horse which is a different thing.  You don't actually own it until to pay - a small thing but thought I'd better correct you from an earlier post!  I think you have misunderstood your solicitor in that point.  The horse is not your property until you have paid for it - albeit you have entered into a contract to buy it.  Otherwise you could have said "its now my property I'm taking it and not paying for it".

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter who was right, who was wrong, and what the law says.  The simple facts are you cannot have the horse you wanted, you have no monetary loss now you have your refund so what do you want to gain?


----------



## Amymay (1 March 2011)

Oh, any by the way OP you had not bought the horse
		
Click to expand...

Yes, they had.


_Offer and acceptance is a traditional approach in contract law used to determine whether an agreement exists between two parties. Agreement consists of an offer by an indication of one person (the "offeror") to another (the "offeree") of the offeror's willingness to enter into a contract on certain terms without further negotiations. A contract is said to come into existence when acceptance of an offer (agreement to the terms in it) has been communicated to the offeror by the offeree and there has been consideration bargained-for induced by promises or a promise and performance._


----------



## prorider (1 March 2011)

amymay said:



			Yes, they had.


_Offer and acceptance is a traditional approach in contract law used to determine whether an agreement exists between two parties. Agreement consists of an offer by an indication of one person (the "offeror") to another (the "offeree") of the offeror's willingness to enter into a contract on certain terms without further negotiations. A contract is said to come into existence when acceptance of an offer (agreement to the terms in it) has been communicated to the offeror by the offeree and there has been consideration bargained-for induced by promises or a promise and performance._

Click to expand...


As I said (if you read it) - yes she entered into a contract to buy the horse but did not actually own it - that is, it was not her property as the OP has claimed in an earlier post.  There is a distinction between the two.  

It does not become her property until she has paid for it and that was what I was correcting the OP on. I am well aware of contract law as what you have quoted is very basic.


----------



## legend22 (1 March 2011)

martlin said:



			I'm also interested to hear views on this...
		
Click to expand...

...me to, or if I said before what if the horse got injured, needed colic surgery or worse. Would it be your horse then.....


----------



## polly1976 (1 March 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			polly1976 - you say you know 'the full story' on this.  

How do you know the full story?  Are you the dealer?  Or the member of staff I spoke to yesterday?  Because no-one else knows the full story, because I haven't told them.
		
Click to expand...


I am not the dealer, or staff, I am what is known in the business as a friend! Just because you haven't told your side of the story does not mean the dealer in question does not talk to her friends about interesting people she has to deal with on a daily basis. 

My posts are not meant to be nasty, more of an objective view from the other side of the fence. Chalk it up to experience, you are not out of pocket and as someone else posted, maybe that horse was not meant to be.


----------



## smellsofhorse (1 March 2011)

martlin said:



			I'm also interested to hear views on this...
		
Click to expand...

Me too!


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			Shezza, good point, I will direct my energies to somewhere other than this thread - I am getting slightly miffed at having to explain: 

a) the interpretation and application of the law in this country (i'm only repeating what I was told by my solicitor, who specialises in equine and contract law)
b) whether a 'sale' was made whether money changed hands or not
c) who was in the right or the wrong
d) and defend myself when people think I am 'telling stories'
		
Click to expand...

I note that you have note acknowledged my original post at comment number 38. Now follows an extract from that message...

"For this to be a legally binding contract you have to show 5 things... 

1, A valid offer
2, A valid acceptance
3, Communication of that acceptance
4, Consideration
5, And an Intention to Create Legal Relations (ICLR)"

I'm glad you have now seemingly been to a solicitor. I'd love to know which one it was, name and firm? Your problem is, based on what you have said thus far, is that I think there may well be a valid offer but with regard to the valid acceptance and communication of that acceptance, all you have done is make reference to text messages. If these do exist, the precise wording of the text messages will be the key to your problem. What is the precise wording? If it is clear that there is an acceptance based on the exact, verbatim, wording then you may be okay. However, your problem is still points 4 and 5. I do not think there is any consideration here. You havent suffered any detriment, the seller no benefit other than the promise of cash on sale. I think there has to be something more than a promise to pay for consideration to be valid.
Finally, based on the precise wording of the texts you say you have, it would be (ultimately) for a court to decide on this point unless it is very expressly stated in such a way that makes the ICLR criteria successful. It does not sound like you will win because of this very point. Anyone selling anything will refuse a deposit if they have other interested buyers, for example. Whatever the reason, the fact that the deposit was actually refused suggests that there was no intention to create a legal relationship on the sellers part (even though there might have been on your part). Assuming she would respond to a solicitors letter, you may find out the reason why she didnt take a deposit but for that reason alone, I do not think you will be successful in court because unless we know the reason WHY she refused the deposit, we can only speculate that she did NOT have an intention to create a legal relationship... so therefore you WOULD NOT win if it went to trial.

In conclusion, the precise words in your text messages may help to establish up to point 4.... but you need to know why she didnt accept a deposit to decide point 5. The only reason I can think that she might refuse a deposit is if she would normally NOT take a deposit on sales of horses...but I think this is likely to be not the case.

Show your solicitor my concerns. I'd love to know his opinion based on the above. I dont think you will win purely because she refused a deposit from you. That means you fail at point 5 even if you are successful at points 1-4.

And I didnt even charge you for my "opinion". 

I'd appreciate the mutual respect of answering my questions and points made about given I have spent the time writing this. 

1) What firm and solicitor is dealing with this now? I'd like to know just because I dont agree with his opinion based on the evidence you have mentioned to date. If you are paying him, this wont be a problem for you.
2) What is the EXACT (copy it from the message, dont paraphrase it) wording of the text that shows she accepted the offer you made?
3) Ignoring the consideration point (your solicitor will advise you on whether the promise to do something consitutes consideration or not), play devils advocate for a moment. It could save you the expense of a solicitor losing your case... Why do YOU think she refused your deposit?

If you answer me all 3 points above, I would be able to put money on the outcome of your case. If you dont answer each point, I will only have to ask you again until you do answer it.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Lea


----------



## myhorsefred (1 March 2011)

prorider said:



			We know who the dealer is because OP mentioned it in an earlier thread about buying a horse.  OP in an earlier thread mentioned possibly buying unseen as she couldn't be bothered to travel 200 miles to see the horse(despite also saying she was a nervous rider).

Prorider - re the previous post you refer to above.  That is not the dealer I am having difficulty with now.  

I have been looking for a horse for a while and have probably contacted about eight to ten dealers over the course of my search.  I have only had good dealings with the dealer that you (wrongly) assume.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Hannahbelle83 (1 March 2011)

Gosh, such a traumatising experience. I have read it all through today. It is sad and upsetting, but if it were me I'd just learn from it and move on. Life can be cruel, but people have businesses to run to survive. I have been in tears over bad situations with vettings and looking at horses, but you learn and become a wiser person for it. 

Sorry that this has been such a bad experience. 

I must say though, more and more often on this forum I am seeing more "bitchiness" and less constructive advice. Sigh.

Oooh, I'm keen to know the outcome too.


----------



## Spotsrock (1 March 2011)

myhorsefred said:





prorider said:



			We know who the dealer is because OP mentioned it in an earlier thread about buying a horse.  OP in an earlier thread mentioned possibly buying unseen as she couldn't be bothered to travel 200 miles to see the horse(despite also saying she was a nervous rider).

Prorider - re the previous post you refer to above.  That is not the dealer I am having difficulty with now.  

I have been looking for a horse for a while and have probably contacted about eight to ten dealers over the course of my search.  I have only had good dealings with the dealer that you (wrongly) assume.
		
Click to expand...

Not to be mean but if 1 person has problems with several others maybe the problem lies with the 1 not all the others?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## scarymare (1 March 2011)

Things happen in life for a reason - this wasn't meant to be.  I bet in 6 months time when you have found your soul mate you will breathe a sigh of relief that you got the right horse despite your best efforts.  Honestly this will be for the best and (not bitchy) can I suggest that you are just making yourself stressed.  Go and start looking again (before you waste all your time and money on lawyers)


----------



## myhorsefred (1 March 2011)

cai said:





myhorsefred said:



			Not to be mean but if 1 person has problems with several others maybe the problem lies with the 1 not all the others?
		
Click to expand...

Cai - I've not had problems with others.  Just this one dealer.  Not to be mean - but maybe you should read posts and try to understand them before you reply.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## myhorsefred (1 March 2011)

Hannahbelle and scary mare - thanks for your comments.  Yes, I hope in six months time I will have found my horse.



I'm off this thread now because it is keeping me stressed about the whole situation.  (I only jumped back in on this thread because another member had assumed who the dealer was and they were wrong.)   I realise this has been a contentious thread as my solicitors opinion seems to differ from some of your opinions.  But I am happy to take my solicitors advice.  Thanks again.


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

Your ignorance to comment 116 is noted. One can only assume that you are not being truthful with the facts.... or.. do not have the answers to the posed questions... meaning that you wont win your case.

You may call it bitchy if you like. The fact is, they are exact things your solicitor will be asking you to prove. The five points I have referred to... Offer, Acceptance, Communication of Acceptance, Consideration and ICLR. 

I would put money on the note you wrote that legal word down on will have "Consideration" written on it.

I suspect we wont ever get to find out the answer to this... I suspect you will disperse like a fart in a cullender but even if you just tell me to get lost, we could get the closure from that we all now want to see! )


----------



## Vixen Van Debz (1 March 2011)

Myhorsefred - it must have been disappointing to be in that situation. If you believe everything happens for a reason, then an even better match is waiting for you to find him/her 80) Congrats however on getting the transporter money back - hopefully this money and the concentration of your energy will help to successfully bring in the next horse you buy 80)  Best of luck with the search!


----------



## MissTyc (1 March 2011)

Did you actually view this horse in person or did you fall in love with a photo?


----------



## onemoretime (1 March 2011)

myhorsefred said:



			Thank you everyone.  Yes, there was a contract in place.  A verbal one, and i have responses on texts which will prove the verbal contract. 

I'm very tempted to name and shame this dealer.
		
Click to expand...

PM me her name please.


----------



## Santa_Claus (1 March 2011)

Firstly I'm glad you're not out of pocket and ultimately although disappointed have not suffered any real loss. BUT Ok its a few years since my law degree but I am struggling to find anything that could be constituted as consideration which is essential to a binding contract. This is why you should ALWAYS leave a deposit even if just £1. Its the same reason that if you give someone a horse (or car/house/object etc) you should always actually ask for £1 from then so that legally there is no doubt as to ownership.

For all users in future get things in writing and make sure you leave a deposit. Had there been a deposit and the OP was truthful in all their comments (not questionning actual validity of comments just being clear  ) then although the original contract would not have been upheld by any sensible judge given the value of the horse involved (i can make a clear assumption from the fact you were going to the small claims court  ) the judge may award some damages for breach of contract. You would though be very lucky to also get costs awarded which is why so many people self represent in small claims court!


----------



## eggs (1 March 2011)

Sorry you lost out on buying this horse.

Glad you got your transportation costs back.

Hope you find a new horse soon.

Don't go down the small claims route - you can win but even then that doesn't mean the other party will pay anything (speaking as someone who won a small claims case but the other party decided they didn't fancying paying ...).


----------



## Luci07 (1 March 2011)

Very very interesting thread. Also very interesting how some posters truly jumped down the throat of the OP. She was cross, she vented, she asked for advice. 

We have had a lot of people quoting their beliefs as fact. It has also been highly illuminating to read the actual legal reality from those posters who DO know the law. I have learnt lessons here re: deposits as well! In her shoes wouldn't any of you felt highly aggrieved? and wanted to know where you stood? Thanks to the proper advice its clear that she wouldn't get very far but tis still good to know. So, as she is a forum member, allow her to be cross, give her advice and be a little less hasty in being judgemental!


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

Luci07... Your right I think anyone would be upset but the law is there to protect the seller as much as any buyer... 

I havn't take sides and I dont think anyone really can unless they knew the actual wording that was used in the verbal and via text but with the OP is unwilling to explain further, other than to say she has text messages, all people can do is advise the best they feel they can on sketchy info & wording.

She was wanting to name & shame this dealer based on her anger of not being able to buy the horse, had she done that it may well have turned the tables against her in as much as it would of been her getting a possible solicitors letter from the dealer, who knows!

There are good dealers and there are bad dealers, we all know that but naming and shaming in a case where the OP obviously wasn't 100% sure where she stood could infact be very damaging for a seller/dealer... 

I don't think it was a case of jumping down her throat I think it was more a case of the readers where trying to help her get to the bottom of this in order to offer some help but when you only get half of a story off someone and they are unwilling to commit to the whole truth then they do tend to fade into the background, which is what appears to have happend her (in my opinion of course) 

It is pleasing to here that she was able to get her £600 back from the transport company, which I think any decent company would do, so at least she has suffered no loss in that respect


----------



## sun-shine (1 March 2011)

Lea84 - you seem to have a lot of emotional investment in the matter...? I'm guessing you're involved with the dealer. And demanding the OP answers all your questions.. seriously??  This is isn't midsomer murders  Please don't sue with me with your deficient legal knowledge


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

I have absolutely no involvement with the dealer at all... I don't know who she is but it really bugs me when people shout their mouth off wanting to bad mouth someone else without proper foundation to what they are saying... 

They always disappear back into the back ground when someone leans a bit of pressure on them... Quick to say how bad this dealer is but never actually comes up with the goods and totally avoids answering question which infact are the same questions any solicitor would ask, so if all is true then myhorsefred shouldn't really have a problem in answering but in this case she has disappeared into the background... 

Deficient legal knowledge? that must make you a solicitor too then??

Yours truely

Insp John Nettles


----------



## omen62 (1 March 2011)

Whether you were there or not, most transporters dont take full payment up front only a deposit, & if there is enough notice that is often returnable less admin charge.  How many miles were they charging you for?  You can take the dealer to small claims, but I would be checking the the transporter in the first instance.

Have since read you did get your costs back, thats good, did not think you could loose out there.


----------



## lannerch (1 March 2011)

I too am astounded by the bitchiness on this thread !

I personally think the op has oodles of reasons to bad mouth an unknown  to us person who has really dissapointed her.
Can you not remember how excited you were when you found the horse you think you are going to buy you cannot sleep with excitement, you start planning, imagining grooming , how they will settle , how they will feel to ride at home etc etc or is it just me ( and I suspect the op ).
I too would have been devistated if this had happened to me and no lea840 I wouldn't answer your questions either!

The dealer did let the op down, unless off course the op is lieing which I doubt. Even if there is another side to the story as we are told there was a verbal contract which should not have been broken.

And if the op wants to go down the legal route that is her buisness and not ours. 

Whatever she chooses I wish her well and hope she finds a suitable horse.


----------



## Amaranta (1 March 2011)

sun-shine said:



			Lea84 - you seem to have a lot of emotional investment in the matter...? I'm guessing you're involved with the dealer. And demanding the OP answers all your questions.. seriously??  This is isn't midsomer murders  Please don't sue with me with your deficient legal knowledge
		
Click to expand...

I must admit I am rather surprised/suspicious of Lea84's fairly aggressive questioning of the poor OP!

OP I am sure you are disappointed, anyone would be in your situation and I can fully understand why you feel the way you do, thankfully you are not out of pocket and can concentrate on finding your real soulmate


----------



## PoppyAnderson (1 March 2011)

lea840 said:



			I have absolutely no involvement with the dealer at all... I don't know who she is but it really bugs me when people shout their mouth off wanting to bad mouth someone else without proper foundation to what they are saying...
		
Click to expand...

Lea840, I've probably missed it somewhere but I don't remember the OP saying the dealer is a 'she'. Like I say, the OP probably has and I've just not picked it up.


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

Isn't the point of asking for advice to be given the answer... sometimes the answer isn't always what you want to hear but if you dont want honest answers off the good folk on here then its simple... don't ask in the first place. I think you are mistaking my comments as 'bitchy' when infact they are specifically answering her questions based on sound legal knowledge. That isn't being bitchy, its intelligently answering her questions even though it might not be what she wants to read in her upset and rage...


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

Amaranta said:



			I must admit I am rather surprised/suspicious of Lea84's fairly aggressive questioning of the poor OP!

OP I am sure you are disappointed, anyone would be in your situation and I can fully understand why you feel the way you do, thankfully you are not out of pocket and can concentrate on finding your real soulmate 

Click to expand...


Suspicious... ok I come out... I am the dealer... move on lol 

Its no more than any solicitor would be asking, so if she is so timid to answer... then she has to ask her self could she stand up in court and point the finger??


----------



## Amaranta (1 March 2011)

Sorry but I fail to see what is intelligent about likening the OP to a fart in a cullender 

You did not question but demanded answers - there is a difference!

Whilst I would not presume to question the accuracy of your statements, I do feel that your delivery style is somewhat lacking in empathy.


----------



## Dolcé (1 March 2011)

lannerch said:



			I too am astounded by the bitchiness on this thread !

I personally think the op has oodles of reasons to bad mouth an unknown  to us person who has really dissapointed her.
Can you not remember how excited you were when you found the horse you think you are going to buy you cannot sleep with excitement, you start planning, imagining grooming , how they will settle , how they will feel to ride at home etc etc or is it just me ( and I suspect the op ).
I too would have been devistated if this had happened to me and no lea840 I wouldn't answer your questions either!

The dealer did let the op down, unless off course the op is lieing which I doubt. Even if there is another side to the story as we are told there was a verbal contract which should not have been broken.

And if the op wants to go down the legal route that is her buisness and not ours. 

Whatever she chooses I wish her well and hope she finds a suitable horse.
		
Click to expand...


This.............I wouldn't have been answering any questions either lea840, you could be anyone including someone to do with the dealer trying to muddy the waters for OP (not saying you are but it is an anonymous forum after all).  Why would you worry about what someone on here says if you have a solicitor specialising in both equine and contract law giving you advice.  OP, I hope you find the horse of your dreams, only you can decide if it is worth pursuing this through the courts and, if you do, I wish you well.


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

Amaranta said:



			Sorry but I fail to see what is intelligent about likening the OP to a fart in a cullender 

You did not question but demanded answers - there is a difference!

Whilst I would not presume to question the accuracy of your statements, I do feel that your delivery style is somewhat lacking in empathy.
		
Click to expand...

As previously stated, I do feel for her but at the end of the day all we were getting was half a tale... and one which was about to name and shame a dealer who may not have even done anything wrong... 

I did question back at Q38 but she ignored me... so I asked her again at Q116 I dont see the problem with that?

She was asking for advice and I gave her the answer... there was more than enough empathy on this post from everyone...


----------



## sun-shine (1 March 2011)

lea840 said:



			?

Yours truely

Insp John Nettles 

Click to expand...

Oh I wish you were - my grandma would go all fangirly


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

PoppyAnderson said:



			Lea840, I've probably missed it somewhere but I don't remember the OP saying the dealer is a 'she'. Like I say, the OP probably has and I've just not picked it up.
		
Click to expand...

She says it in the very first post... and her second post and several others after that... Have you even read this thread lol


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

sun-shine said:



			Oh I wish you were - my grandma would go all fangirly 

Click to expand...

Ha Ha Ha We all love a bit of John Nettles


----------



## Dolcé (1 March 2011)

lea840 said:



			As previously stated, I do feel for her but at the end of the day all we were getting was half a tale... and one which was about to name and shame a dealer who may not have even done anything wrong... 

I did question back at Q38 but she ignored me... so I asked her again at Q116 I dont see the problem with that?

She was asking for advice and I gave her the answer... there was more than enough empathy on this post from everyone...
		
Click to expand...


How do you know we were only getting half a tale, I haven't seen anywhere that OP has changed any of her experiences with this dealer.  Do you know something we don't or are you just assuming that there must be more to it?


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

hch4971 said:



			How do you know we were only getting half a tale, I haven't seen anywhere that OP has changed any of her experiences with this dealer.  Do you know something we don't or are you just assuming that there must be more to it?
		
Click to expand...

Of course we are only getting half a tale as there are two sides to every story and no one has heard the dealers side, there seems to be a few people who know the dealer on here (I'm not one of them... you suspicious minded people lol ) but somethings just not adding up here from the comments that people have made who actually know the dealer.

So we have only had half a tale...


----------



## Amaranta (1 March 2011)

lea840 said:



			Of course we are only getting half a tale as there are two sides to every story and no one has heard the dealers side, there seems to be a few people who know the dealer on here (I'm not one of them... you suspicious minded people lol ) but somethings just not adding up here from the comments that people have made who actually know the dealer.

So we have only had half a tale...
		
Click to expand...

The OP has stated quite clearly that the dealer people assumed it was is in fact NOT the dealer in question, so no, people do not actually know the dealer.


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

Whether people think they know the dealer or not isnt the issue here. The issue is that there are always two sides to any tale... we are hearing just one. That was all I meant by having only half a story...


----------



## nointerestinhorses (1 March 2011)

I have no interest in horses (as you can tell from my name), I have just been shown this thread by a friend and have been stuck halfway between laughing and crying at some of the comments which have been written. I am writing this in an attempt to ensure that other people who may find themselves in a similar situation are aware of their rights and can act quickly and promptly to ensure that they can have the horse which they have agreed to buy and also to correct  number of misconceptions which been asserted on this page.

In the case of the OP the first thing to consider is whether there was a contract. A verbel contract is just as valid as a written one for anything ther than the transfer of an interest in land which would require writing under the Law of Property (Miscellenous Provisions) Act 1989 s.2. For a valid contract you need a valid offer and acceptance (I am not sure where the point about communicating the acceptance comes from, I would consider that part of a valid acceptance), valuable consideration, certainty and an intention to create legal relations.

In this case the offer and acceptance can be found in the text massages and will be present at the time where they stop negotiating and agree a price. Unfortunately I haven't seen the texts, nor would expect to, the information is useful evidence and it would be stupid for the OP to post it in public like this. 

Assuming there is a valid offer and acceptance the next point is whether there is consideration. Consideration, for those of you who don't do law, is essentially an exchange in promises. For example I would promise to give you £5000 if you promise to give me a car, without both promises the contract cannot bind either party. In this case, contrary to what has been said, there is valid consideration. The OP has promised to give the dealer money and a horse in return for the dealer to promising to give her the horse. It is not relevent whether the consideration is to given now or in a week or 10 years from now, what matters is that their is a mutually enforceable contract (fyi for the person who posted from Scotland, Scots law has no equivalent of consideration and the contract would be binding even if it was for nothing in return). 

The points about certainty and intention to create legal relations can also be dealt with reatively briefly. Assuming the text messages show over and acceptance, the certainty will be there with them. There will be a certain price and the horses concerned are identified. There is also likely to be intention to create legal relations on the basis that there is a presumption in business matters that any dealings with a consumer intends to create legal relations and also that the parties agreed to arrange for travel expenses. There is therefore a contract in this case.

Once it is established that there is a contract it is necessary to consider the effect of the contract. Because this is a part exchange agreement (and not strictly a sale), the contract will be covered by Section 11A of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 which deals with contracts for the transfer of property. That said the substantive provisions are taken directly out of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 so it is easier to use this act as that is the one which would apply in future situations where there is no part exchange (the provisions in the Supply of Goods and Sercices Act are s.11A-F). 

Section 18 rule 1 state that once there is a contract for the sale of specefic goods in a deliverable state property will pass to the buyer. This essentially means that as soon as there was a contract betwee the OP and the dealer the OP owned the horse in law. AT THAT POINT THE HORSE BELONGED TO THE OP AND NOT TO THE DEALER. This means that the dealer had no right to sell the horse to a third party and that sale was legally deficient. 

This means that the OP is stil the owner of the horse and has a right to sue the third party for conversion of the Horse (essentially getting her horse back to her yard) subject to an exception where the third party would have to show that they were completely unaware of the OP.

Apologies for writing such a long statemnt but I believe this to be the law which applies to the OP's case and that it is dangerous for people to come onto a forum like this with incorrect knowledge holding themselves to have legal knowlege. I of course have to say that under the principle in Hedley Byrne v Heller I cannot except any liability for anybody who relies on this information (I would have thought anyone who holds themselves out to have any legal knowledge would make a similar disclaimer) but this is the law as it stands.

I would advise those people who claim that this happens all the time and she should chalk it up to experience to consider there rights and in this scenario and to act quickly to ensure that they get the horse they were promised. I would advise any dealers who may participate in this practice that doing so may result not only in the original contractor getting the horse but also the third party claiming damages against them for any loss they have suffered.

If you have read this far thank you, if not your not reading this anyway so it's alright, I know law can be boring. I just thought I would let people know what the law actually says


----------



## Dolcé (1 March 2011)

lea840 said:



			Of course we are only getting half a tale as there are two sides to every story and no one has heard the dealers side, there seems to be a few people who know the dealer on here (I'm not one of them... you suspicious minded people lol ) but somethings just not adding up here from the comments that people have made who actually know the dealer.

So we have only had half a tale...
		
Click to expand...

But just supposing that as the OP has texts from the dealer as she says, regarding the sale, the deposit, the PX and the transport then what more can there be to know?  Would that not show the 'friend' of the dealer is lying? Why is it that we always have to doubt that someone is telling the truth when they post on here for advice or support and that when some person suddenly comes up with an alternative 'story' we are only too happy to believe them over the OP?


----------



## PoppyAnderson (1 March 2011)

lea840 said:



			She says it in the very first post... and her second post and several others after that... Have you even read this thread lol 

Click to expand...

Yep, read it all but I clearly missed this bit!


----------



## sun-shine (1 March 2011)

yeah... ^^ that


----------



## PoppyAnderson (1 March 2011)

nointerestinhorses said:



			In the case of the OP the first thing to consider is whether there was a contract. A verbel contract
		
Click to expand...

The correct spelling of this word may help with your credibility. Just saying.


----------



## nointerestinhorses (1 March 2011)

PoppyAnderson said:



			The correct spelling of this word may help with your credibility. Just saying.
		
Click to expand...

Really?? Can i contact you for a proof read next time??


----------



## Dolcé (1 March 2011)

Whoop Whoop, go 'nointerestinhorses'!! Isn't this just what most of us wanted to hear?  OP, go get your horse!


----------



## nointerestinhorses (1 March 2011)

hch4971 said:



			Whoop Whoop, go 'notinterestedinhorses'!! Isn't this just what most of us wanted to hear?  OP, go get your horse!
		
Click to expand...

Wheres the like button  oh sorry I meant where's


----------



## Amaranta (1 March 2011)

Brilliant, thank you nointerestinhorses, I would be interested to hear what lea840, our resident expert, has to say now


----------



## onemoretime (1 March 2011)

Amaranta said:



			Sorry but I fail to see what is intelligent about likening the OP to a fart in a cullender 

You did not question but demanded answers - there is a difference!

Whilst I would not presume to question the accuracy of your statements, I do feel that your delivery style is somewhat lacking in empathy.
		
Click to expand...

I totally agree Amaranta, Lea 840's posts are aggressive and must be very upsetting for an already wronged person.  OP does not have to answer any questions on here she is not on trial!!


----------



## onemoretime (1 March 2011)

lea840 said:



			Of course we are only getting half a tale as there are two sides to every story and no one has heard the dealers side, there seems to be a few people who know the dealer on here (I'm not one of them... you suspicious minded people lol ) but somethings just not adding up here from the comments that people have made who actually know the dealer.

So we have only had half a tale...
		
Click to expand...

Does anybody really know who the dealer is or are they just saying this.  For all we know it could be you.  In fact you said it was you in an earlier post.


----------



## Dolcé (1 March 2011)

Let the battle of the legal experts commence, or will lea840 now be the one to disperse like a fart in a colander!!


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

Nointerestinhorses: Your post echos what I said at posts 38 and 116. We disagree on a few things though. The point of acceptance is that it MUST be communicated for it to be valid. If only one party accepts the contract (as seems to be the case here) there is no meeting of minds. No meetings of minds is why a verbal contract can fail. There has to be a meeting of minds. Both parties have to agree, so that acceptance MUST be communicated. Silence can never be acceptance.
I agree with you that offer and acceptance can be found in the text messages but, when pushed, the OP has failed to clarify the issue over text messages... so it is not a foregone conclusion that the text messages do in fact affirm offer and acceptance. Its subject to evidence. I fail to see why it would be stupid for the OP to post publically.. its crucial to her case.
With regards to your consideration point, I agree with the promises bit but I think mere promises on their own is not enough. I am 80% sure you have to have something material to have "good" consideration.. even one penny would do it. I am not entirely sure if promises alone is enough...but I can find out in the morning! It might be time to dig out my old notes.... Maybe you could double check for us both too?
Finally, concerning ICLR, you readily conclude that there is a contract in this case. I dont know if you are aware or not but there was a refusal of a deposit by the seller. I think this is clear evidence of NO intention to create a legal relationship with the OP. Obviously, it is dependant on the reasons behind the seller to disclose but I agree in principle with your comment. I just dont think you can so readily assume ICLR when the seller refused a deposit?? Had she have taken the deposit, both Good consideration and ICLR would be established... but without that deposit, I am not sure ICLR is actually there?
One other thing to note.. only one party appears to have begun performance of the contract. The OP. The seller appears to have done nothing with regard to performance. BOTH parties have to begin performing the contract if you are to infer that there was an intention without evidence of acceptance (as is the case here), see Foley v Classique Coaches 1934. I remember that case well! 
I dont agree that it is not a sale.... you call it a part exchange agreement but actually, it is a conditional sale upon sale. Seller buys buyers horse for (a) price provided that buyer buys new horse for (b) price.
I totally agree with your s.18 comments. I just dont think there was a contract though... so we may have to move on...

With regard to the folowing paragraph
"...and that it is dangerous for people to come onto a forum like this with incorrect knowledge holding themselves to have legal knowlege. I of course have to say that under the principle in Hedley Byrne v Heller I cannot except any liability for anybody who relies on this information (I would have thought anyone who holds themselves out to have any legal knowledge would make a similar disclaimer) but this is the law as it stands."
You assume I am not legally trained or qualified by your wording. I did the Qualifying Law Degree (with honours) and I also did the Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice. I finished my training contract some years ago and although I do not specialise in tort anymore, I am qualified to know what I am talking about. For that reason, I did not provide the usual disclaimer because I can in fact carry this opinion out.
If the OP had got back to me with the answers, of which I am sure you are aware, that are of paramount importance in this case, I am confident I could get a judgement in favour of the OP and maybe get that horse back for her... maybe not, depends on the new buyer... but I am qualified and I do know what I am talking about. I thought you would have spotted that... but then, I have to now think that you are yet to see my original posts at message 38 and 116.

On a lighter note, its GREAT That someone with actual knowledge has come on here now... one of us will be wrong because the ecidence available is not conclusive but whoever is right/wrong.. at least we get the legal answer the OP was actually looking for.

Maybe the OP might now post the answers to the issues we both agree are open for discussion... if not for the simple reason that I dont agree with you on them issues?


----------



## onemoretime (1 March 2011)

Amaranta said:



			Brilliant, thank you nointerestinhorses, I would be interested to hear what lea840, our resident expert, has to say now 

Click to expand...

Yes so would I.  Whose hiding now!!


----------



## onemoretime (1 March 2011)

hch4971 said:



			Let the battle of the legal experts commence, or will lea840 now be the one to disperse like a fart in a colander!!
		
Click to expand...

Probably


----------



## jodie3 (1 March 2011)

So if the OP is legally the owner of the horse as there was a contract betwen the OP and the dealer does that mean that the dealer owns the horse that she was prepared to take in part ex?

If there is a legal contract between a buyer and a seller once all the correct formalities have been observed what happens if the horse becomes seriously ill/injured/dies before money changes hands and is actually with the new owner?


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

Ha ha, I am loving the notion that I was disappearing like that infamous fart in the cullinder.... I was just writing my reply... you guys are too quick to jump on me!

Even if you lot dont agree with my delivery technique, I am getting her the LEGAL answer she originally wanted way back at post 1. If she'd have asked for empathy, I'd have put my arms round her, give her a big cuddle and said words to the effect of "there there...". I didnt... I did what she asked... gave her the legal answer that she was seeking. Surely thats worth something?


----------



## onemoretime (1 March 2011)

jodie3 said:



			So if the OP is legally the owner of the horse as there was a contract betwen the OP and the dealer does that mean that the dealer owns the horse that she was prepared to take in part ex?

If there is a legal contract between a buyer and a seller once all the correct formalities have been observed what happens if the horse becomes seriously ill/injured/dies before money changes hands and is actually with the new owner?
		
Click to expand...

That is a difficult one I must say.


----------



## nointerestinhorses (1 March 2011)

Double posted


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

jodie3 said:



			So if the OP is legally the owner of the horse as there was a contract betwen the OP and the dealer does that mean that the dealer owns the horse that she was prepared to take in part ex?

If there is a legal contract between a buyer and a seller once all the correct formalities have been observed what happens if the horse becomes seriously ill/injured/dies before money changes hands and is actually with the new owner?
		
Click to expand...

Jodie, this is whats known as a "Frustrating Act" and the contract legally comes to an end at the horses death/serious injury. If the horse is paid for in full, you do not need to give a refund... although if you are a business, you would just for the avoidance of bad PR.... if its a deposit only, then you would lose your deposit. Its what insurance companies rely on alllll the time when it comes to bad weather and car damage...

True frustration legally ends the contract and all losses lay where they fall..... if you have paid for it, legally, that money is lost.... harsh but true..


----------



## Dolcé (1 March 2011)

lea840 said:



			Ha ha, I am loving the notion that I was disappearing like that infamous fart in the cullinder.... I was just writing my reply... you guys are too quick to jump on me!

Sorry.............I couldn't resist!

Click to expand...


----------



## nointerestinhorses (1 March 2011)

onemoretime said:



			That is a difficult one I must say.
		
Click to expand...

Its a very good question. Technically the horse in part-exchange would belong to the dealer be she would have what is called a lien. This means that despite not being the legal owner she can keep her horse until the other parties delivers the horse she has been promised.

With regards to the horse becoming ill their is a concept in commercial law known as risk. Whoever has the risk at any time will have to bare the cost if the goods (ie the horse) is damaged at nobodies fault. The normal position is that the risk would travel with ownership and therefore the OP would bare the cost however a recent EU consumer directive states that if a person is acting as a consumer they only acquire the risk on delivery. Therefore if something was to happen to the horse the OP would have a right either to reject the horse and rescind the entire contract or to take the horse and accept a price reduction in return.


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

hch4971 said:



			Sorry.............I couldn't resist!

Click to expand...

Its okay HCH, I wouldnt expect anything less... lets face it, I am pretty much the only one vocal enough throughout this post to deserve a bit of cannonfodder coming back my way. It's expected and your humour appreciated! 

If nothing else, maybe all those that inferred that I was being bitchy can now accept that my intentions were to get to the bottom of it... sometimes the search of the truth can hurt but if we get to the bottom of it, we will find her the answer to her original post... which was whether or not she could hold her to the sale..... 

I didnt mean to offend anyone by my interrogation... but it is what a solicitor would do when vetting their client...they make sure their client is arguing from a strong standing before accepting their version of events... because ultimately... a jusge may well do the same if it went to trial! Are we all friends again now?


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

nointerestinhorses said:



			With regards to the horse becoming ill their is a concept in commercial law known as risk. Whoever has the risk at any time will have to bare the cost if the goods (ie the horse) is damaged at nobodies fault.
		
Click to expand...

 We are not talking about commercial law though.. this is consumer/contract law. Still looking forward to your comments nointerest??


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

Gotta say.. I am wondering where nointerestinhorses has gone... maybe they have dispersed like.. err.. cant think of a comparative right now...


----------



## jodie3 (1 March 2011)

Thank you, very interesting replies.

I suppose buying a horse is like most things, all very simple and straightforward until something goes wrong (or is perceived to have gone wrong) and then either party could find themselves in an expensive legal dispute.


----------



## Amaranta (1 March 2011)

I didnt mean to offend anyone by my interrogation... but it is what a solicitor would do when vetting their client...they make sure their client is arguing from a strong standing before accepting their version of events... because ultimately... a jusge may well do the same if it went to trial! Are we all friends again now? 

Click to expand...

Of course we are


----------



## gnubee (1 March 2011)

Thanks for posting what I was dying to and couldn't be bothered writing up, nointerestinhorses. The hearsay legal opinions flying around here are scary sometimes.

Lea, consideration is 100% definitely not required to change hands for the contract to be valid; you just need to have each promised something which would be valid consideration. E.g. when you buy a sofa and pay nothing for the first year, that sofa becomes yours. The shop can't take the sofa back half way through the first year just because you haven't paid anything for it (however, they might have a claim if you didn't pay them the money when it became due (i.e. at the end of the first year), as then you are in breach of the contract).

On the hypothetical topic of transfer of ownership at the date of contract and the horse dying before delivery, I think it would depend on the exact circumstances of the deal. Transfer of ownership in property is usually assumed to take place at the date of contract unless otherwise stated. However, with horses due to the ongoing care requirements from the posessor (seller), it may be possible to rebut this assumption, in which case the valid (enforceable) contract still exists up to the point the horse dies, at which point the contract is frustrated and neither party can make a claim for fulfilment or damages. I am not aware of any precedent on the issue. 
You would be more likely to see this situation come in to play if e.g. a piece of Art held in a gallery was sold by the owner to a purchaser. If the art is damaged in an earthquake, it is very possible that this will be treated as the buyer's loss, and they would still have to pay the purchaser the agreed price even though they never managed to take delivery of the art.

On possible outcomes of the OP's case if it were pursued:
- the seller cannot create a valid contract with the second purchaser as they no longer have the right to sell the horse (as there is already a contract in place to sell to OP); therefore if the seller still has the horse in their possession, the OP can turn up and take delivery (and if this is still an option I would STRONGLY advise that you take it).
- if the horse has been delivered to the second purchaser and they were aware that in doing so the dealer was breaking their agreement with OP, OP is still entitled to the horse on payment of the agreed fee/part exchange horse to the dealer; the dealer would have to refund the second purchaser. I imagine it would be very hard to prove the second purchaser was aware of the existing contract, so it is unlikely this will help you out.
- if the second purchaser did not know about the first agreement and has already got the horse, they are entitled to keep it. OP is then entitled to damages in lieu of specific performance. OP would also be entitled to any excess price paid by the second purchaser over that agreed to by the OP (e.g. if your deal was worth £300, and the second purchaser paid £500, you are owed the extra £200 by the dealer). This is usually a nice remedy in gazumping, but you have the added complication of what the partex value of your horse would have been, so I doubt in your situation you could get anything this way in court. Also, if the new buyer only paid the same or less than you agreed, you would not get anything this way.

For those who are curious about what would happen if it was the other way round, and the dealer wanted to enforce a contract with the buyer pulling out:
the rules are the same; the contract is valid in law. However, as there are emotional attachments and welfare considerations involved in the purchase of a horse, there is a good chance that a court would award damages rather than specific performance.  Usually the provable damages to a seller of the sale falling through are pretty low (perhaps a week or two's livery (and then if they carry on riding the horse you could argue that the extra livery is not a damage) and a readvertising fee if adverts were taken down). Additionally, from a practical perspective, how many people would really be keen to go to court to try to force someone who didn't want it to take possession of their horse... It is therefore pretty rare for it to be worth the seller making claims against the buyer. 

Claims on the other side are more desirable as a buyer will often incurr travel expenses, transport costs, vetting costs etc. and perhaps tack costs and deposits on stabling etc., and therefore are more commonly pursued.


----------



## nointerestinhorses (1 March 2011)

I'm still here! Forum deleted my essay of a reply, so I have it write it out again. Watch this space


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

gnubee said:



			The hearsay legal opinions flying around here are scary sometimes.

Lea, consideration is 100% definitely not required to change hands for the contract to be valid; you just need to have each promised something which would be valid consideration.
		
Click to expand...

I hope you are not referring to me by that statement gnubee? With regard to your second point... I agree about promises being consideration but off the top of my head, there is a difference between consideration and "good" consideration. I cannot get the answer right now as all my material is in work but I can find that bit out for certain tomorrow.

There is only 2 real outcomes here.. if the OP is able to hold her to the sale (as per the question in post 1), the OP would have to be successful in establishing the breach of contract. If she is, the usual remedy would be damages (commonly referred to as compensation although technically inaccurate) but in this case, she wants the actual horse. Nointerestinhorses is right when (s)he says that getting the horse back from the new buyer would totally depend on whether or not the new buyer was aware of this fall out. Its likely that the new buyer would have no idea (but we would need a statement from the new buyer) but its not beyond the realms of the imagination to assume the new buyer would have no idea of this fall out.. why would she? Not like the seller is going to tell her anything more than she has had a few people showing an interest.. or that she has been messed about. That would leave just damages.... of which the court would determin just how much they think it should be.

The second outcome here is that she fails to establish any contract and has to pay the costs of her own solicitor, plus the reasonable costs of the sellers solicitor in defending the action and there is also a risk of costs on an indemnity basis (at a premium) if there has been offers known as Part 36 offers made by the seller to settle the action amicably.

True, its all supposition right now... but it is a real risk once you decide to 'go legal'. It is financially risky unless you have an insurance policy to cover you for legal expenses.

Its getting late and I am up early in the morning.. I have seen your comment nointerest... I'll wait up a bit longer but if you end up posting after I have retired to the bedroom, please understand I would NOT be dispersing... I would just merely be too tired to wait up any longer!


----------



## nointerestinhorses (1 March 2011)

Sorry for taking to reply, i wrote it all and then my computer logged me out so it went away 

I have just read my first post and nearly killed myself so I can't bare to think how you guys must be feeling, with that in mind I'm going to write this one in bullet points 

1) For a valid contract one party must offer and the other accept. If the OP has agreed to terms set by the dealer then the dealer does not need to communicate her acceptance of the OPs acceptance, there is already a valid contract.

2) Her case, if she chose to pursue it would be decided in court not on a forum, so I don't think it would be wise for her to display her evidence so publicly.

3) Consideration does not have to be money and does not have to at the time of contract. Examples of non-money consideration include the horse in this case. There are contracts for non-disclosure and shareholders agreements where the foregoing of a right is valuable consideration and if you had to wait for the consideration to be paid to get a valid contract where goods are delivered and paid for later when these contracts exist all the time.

4) With regards ICLR I admit that no deposit could be evidence against but there is stronger evidence for it when they agreed to spend money on transport costs. As the presumption is in favour of ICLR in this case I believe it would be found.

5) The contract is such that it requires one party to act before the other, by your logic any contract where this is the case could be held void.

6) The SGA only covers contracts where the only consideration is the price, in this case it is probably more akin to a barter. Fortunately the reform in 1982 has made the difference largely obsolete (except with regard to rejection of goods).

7) Why would you do a qualifying law degree and a GDL?

8) If you are qualified then it would be even more advised to put the disclaimer down. Otherwise it could argue that it is professional malpractice and you shouldn't be giving advice outside of work.

9) I've seen all your posts

10) With regards the other post, contracts for the transfer of property fall within the Sale of Goods Act or the Supply of Goods and Services Act. If these acts concern this case then the rules on risk apply. The fact that it is a consumer rather than a business transaction means that the EU directive would apply.


----------



## nointerestinhorses (1 March 2011)

gnubee said:



			However, with horses due to the ongoing care requirements from the posessor (seller), it may be possible to rebut this assumption,
		
Click to expand...

A student of Lord Diplock perhaps??


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

nointerestinhorses said:



			1) For a valid contract one party must offer and the other accept. If the OP has agreed to terms set by the dealer then the dealer does not need to communicate her acceptance of the OPs acceptance, there is already a valid contract.

2) Her case, if she chose to pursue it would be decided in court not on a forum, so I don't think it would be wise for her to display her evidence so publicly.

4) With regards ICLR I admit that no deposit could be evidence against but there is stronger evidence for it when they agreed to spend money on transport costs. As the presumption is in favour of ICLR in this case I believe it would be found.

5) The contract is such that it requires one party to act before the other, by your logic any contract where this is the case could be held void.

7) Why would you do a qualifying law degree and a GDL?

8) If you are qualified then it would be even more advised to put the disclaimer down. Otherwise it could argue that it is professional malpractice and you shouldn't be giving advice outside of work.

10) With regards the other post, contracts for the transfer of property fall within the Sale of Goods Act or the Supply of Goods and Services Act. If these acts concern this case then the rules on risk apply. The fact that it is a consumer rather than a business transaction means that the EU directive would apply.
		
Click to expand...

I have left the posts out that I have no issue with... 

1) You have misunderstood my point. There has to be an offer and there has to be an acceptance of the offer. That acceptance HAS to be communicated to the offeror though. We are not told anywhere in this post that the seller accepted her offer. All we were told is that she has text messages to prove that they'd agreed a price. That is not acceptance. That is discussion and negotiation only. Silence is NOT acceptance and, as it stands, we are not told specifically that "the dealer accepted that I was to buy the horse if I paid x amount". All we were told is that they had agreed to get some transport prices and the asking price. I asked for clarification from the OP incase I had missed something important but that has not come forward.

2) Of course it is wise to display it publically... she asked for advice and to get the advice, you need to provide the evidence. Evidence posted in a public forum is of the same value to evidence NOT posted in a forum. Therefore, she has absolutely nothing to lose at all by revealing the answers that I have been asking her for...

4) They didnt agree to spending money on transport costs. All we were told is that they both agreed to get some quotes. Thats WORLDS away from both agreeing to spending on transport costs!

5) Not at all, they can sort out paperwork...common place once a sale has been concluded...especially in a business to consumer transaction?!?!

7) I didnt do a QLD and a GDL, I did a QLD and a PGDLP.... commonly known as the LPC.... why are you asking such a green question.. are you secretly vetting me?

8) It could ALSO be argued a marketing excercize at some point in the future if, as a suspect she hasnt, the OP has not actually been to a solicitor yet.... Had she answered my questions, I would know whether or not she is likely to win and if she hasnt actually been to the solicitor yet, I might have poached another client from her local firm... the rules have changed on malpractice recently. I'm not up to date on the new conduct regs (my conduct regs are again in work) but I am sure you are still allowed to accept instruction from any person... yes it contradicts the malpractice arguement but its still advertising!

10) You raise a good point. I am not up to speed with SoG and I admit I would have to resort Halsbury's Laws to get the up to dat eposition but I cannot do that at home. We dont have electronc access in work if you are not in your expertise. I only have electronic resources for other areas (its cheaper this way apparently) so I would have to see if what your point here actually is accurate or not.

End of the day, we dont know exactly what the facts are here because the OP has become that infamous fart... but if we had the answers, I am sure we could comclude the answer between us.. or at least agree to disagree. Eitherway, she would get the real issues in her case answered and, at least in her own mind, she would have an understanding to whether she is likely to win or not!


----------



## lea840 (1 March 2011)

lea840 said:



			10) You raise a good point. I am not up to speed with SoG and I admit I would have to resort Halsbury's Laws to get the up to dat eposition but I cannot do that at home. We dont have electronc access in work if you are not in your expertise. I only have electronic resources for other areas (its cheaper this way apparently) so I would have to see if what your point here actually is accurate or not.
		
Click to expand...


I better try that one again, it didnt make sense.... We dont have electronis resources at HOME. I only have access to electronic resources in at home in limited areas and paper access for other areas are also in work.

I need to hit the sack now... I hope you lot have enjoyed the discussion... even if you dont agree with everything said by me or anyone else... 

Nite for now.. I will return at about 19:30 tomorrow.. unless I see something right after I hit the magic "send" button!


----------



## Dolcé (2 March 2011)

I have to admit I am fascinated, I just hope that OP is still monitoring the thread and can make use of the brilliant discussion even if it just helps with making a decision on what to do next (or not).  The different interpretations of the law, even by qualified, professionals, amazes me, it just goes to show how difficult the area is to understand and what an 'ass' English law really is. 

It is a real shame that you legal brains were not around a few weeks ago when someone else desperately needed help with a sale that had gone wrong, could have been a happier outcome for her.


----------



## digitalangel (2 March 2011)

*applause* you two should totally get married


----------



## Dolcé (2 March 2011)

digitalangel said:



			*applause* you two should totally get married    

Click to expand...

Nooo............I'm assuming that nointerest is a man (writes like a man I think) and that if I am correct he should marry me and we could have all sorts of legal arguments all day long (which I would win, naturally).  I've been arguing the legalities of this for days with my OH, he is with Lea840's argument, I'm with nointerest's, and, as I am always right.................


----------



## martlin (2 March 2011)

gnubee said:



			For those who are curious about what would happen if it was the other way round, and the dealer wanted to enforce a contract with the buyer pulling out:
the rules are the same; the contract is valid in law.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't particularly interested in the LEGAL position... more what would peoples responses be  - the HHO Justice, you know, is a very special kind


----------



## onemoretime (2 March 2011)

nointerestinhorses said:



			I'm still here! Forum deleted my essay of a reply, so I have it write it out again. Watch this space
		
Click to expand...

How unnecessary to delete your post.  It was positive and written out in a sensible and sympathetic manner rather than the barrack room lawyer approach that has been on here.  If anything that should have been removed.


----------



## onemoretime (2 March 2011)

nointerestinhorses said:



			Sorry for taking to reply, i wrote it all and then my computer logged me out so it went away 

I have just read my first post and nearly killed myself so I can't bare to think how you guys must be feeling, with that in mind I'm going to write this one in bullet points 

1) For a valid contract one party must offer and the other accept. If the OP has agreed to terms set by the dealer then the dealer does not need to communicate her acceptance of the OPs acceptance, there is already a valid contract.

2) Her case, if she chose to pursue it would be decided in court not on a forum, so I don't think it would be wise for her to display her evidence so publicly.

3) Consideration does not have to be money and does not have to at the time of contract. Examples of non-money consideration include the horse in this case. There are contracts for non-disclosure and shareholders agreements where the foregoing of a right is valuable consideration and if you had to wait for the consideration to be paid to get a valid contract where goods are delivered and paid for later when these contracts exist all the time.

4) With regards ICLR I admit that no deposit could be evidence against but there is stronger evidence for it when they agreed to spend money on transport costs. As the presumption is in favour of ICLR in this case I believe it would be found.

5) The contract is such that it requires one party to act before the other, by your logic any contract where this is the case could be held void.

6) The SGA only covers contracts where the only consideration is the price, in this case it is probably more akin to a barter. Fortunately the reform in 1982 has made the difference largely obsolete (except with regard to rejection of goods).

7) Why would you do a qualifying law degree and a GDL?

8) If you are qualified then it would be even more advised to put the disclaimer down. Otherwise it could argue that it is professional malpractice and you shouldn't be giving advice outside of work.

9) I've seen all your posts

10) With regards the other post, contracts for the transfer of property fall within the Sale of Goods Act or the Supply of Goods and Services Act. If these acts concern this case then the rules on risk apply. The fact that it is a consumer rather than a business transaction means that the EU directive would apply.
		
Click to expand...


Sorry NIIH I thought you meant that the Fat Controller has removed your post.  I see now you meant your computer had done it.


----------



## jhoward (2 March 2011)

martlin said:



			I wasn't particularly interested in the LEGAL position... more what would peoples responses be  - the HHO Justice, you know, is a very special kind 

Click to expand...

posting a thread on HHO is a walk in the park compared to acourt room I would think, 

ive never seen hho let anyone out on bail either


----------



## onemoretime (2 March 2011)

There's not always much justice in a Court Room either.


----------



## Dolcé (2 March 2011)

onemoretime said:



			There's not always much justice in a Court Room either.
		
Click to expand...

I suppose the judge has to decide on their own interpretation too, it is clear from above that it is not always as straightforward as it looks. Tort is a notoriously difficult area compared to Criminal (and that can be complicated).


----------



## lannerch (2 March 2011)

onemoretime said:



			There's not always much justice in a Court Room either.
		
Click to expand...

Very rarely in my experiance! It seems a good liar always wins.


----------



## chocys4 (2 March 2011)

the truth will out in the end im sure. hope we all get to find out.!!


----------



## nointerestinhorses (2 March 2011)

onemoretime said:



			How unnecessary to delete your post.  It was positive and written out in a sensible and sympathetic manner rather than the barrack room lawyer approach that has been on here.  If anything that should have been removed.
		
Click to expand...

I think it was my computer not the forum itself, not sure though


----------



## onemoretime (2 March 2011)

nointerestinhorses said:



			I think it was my computer not the forum itself, not sure though
		
Click to expand...

Yes, Im sorry I realised that after reading a later post of yours.


----------



## lea840 (2 March 2011)

onemoretime said:



			Yes, Im sorry I realised that after reading a later post of yours.
		
Click to expand...

Typical.


----------

