As part of my practice, I recently had a trial involving the sale of a horse.

My client, a horse lover (but not in the business of selling horses) had sold a 14-year old First Level Dressage horse. The buyers inspected the horse but bought him without requesting a pre-purchase exam.

Following the sale, the buyers showed the horse in various shows in Vermont where he won twice in Training Level classes. However, after two months, the buyers contacted my client and asked her to take the horse back and refund their money. They complained that the horse's x-rays showed navicular changes and arthritis and that the horse bucked when asked to perform flying changes. Eventually, the family sued my client.

In evidence were five different witnesses, including the treating farrier, the "blue ribbons" that the horse had won and letters from the veterinarian. The deciding Judge found in favor of my client, relying on evidence that showed that the horse had not experienced any problems prior to the sale, and that the (later) diagnosed navicular and arthritis were not sufficiently shown to be the cause of the horse's new tendency to buck when asked to perform canter changes. In addition, the court considered a bill of sale that was signed by the two parties and that stated "no warranties".

In the end, both parties left this experience unsatisfied - the buyers, because they lost their claim and ended up with a horse that didn't work for them; and my client, because in order to defend herself against this lawsuit, she spent a significant amount of money on attorney's fees that she will not be able to recuperate.

How could this have been avoided? Clearly, the buyers should have had the horse "vetted" prior to the purchase. My client should have used a detailed equine sales contract, which would have entitled her to recuperate her attorney's fees from the buyers as the non-prevailing party. Next time....