****
The horse’s new owners thought they had found a deal of a lifetime. They paid $22,500 for the majestic equine, but their excitement was short-lived. The first few rides with the new rider were a nightmare. The horse reared up six or seven times, bucked, and kicked, refusing to cooperate. It was a stark contrast to the previous owner’s claims that the horse was a gentle giant, suitable for equestrian eventing. The horse’s behavior was not an isolated incident. The new rider encountered more problems, including bucking, rearing up, and aggressive kicking out. It was as if the horse had developed a mind of its own, and the new owner was at its mercy. The veterinary team that examined the horse was baffled by its behavior. After conducting a series of tests, they discovered that the horse suffered from a condition known as “kissing spine.”
**

What is Kissing Spine?

**
Kissing spine is a congenital condition that affects the thoracic vertebrae, causing back pain while being ridden. It’s a painful condition that can lead to poor behavior in horses, making them uncomfortable and unpredictable. The diagnosis was made following radiographs and palpation of the back, which revealed pain in the thoracic region and gluteal muscles. The vets concluded that the condition was present at the time of sale, but it wasn’t clinically evident. The tribunal referee, Sara Grayson, accepted that the new owner had incurred significant costs for vet investigations and grazing. However, she also acknowledged that the costs claimed were a contribution only. The new owners intended to find a new home for the horse as a paddock mate, as it was no longer suitable for equestrian eventing. The only possible outcome for the new owners was to claim compensation for their losses. **

Compensation Claim

**
Section 35 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 provided that if a party to a contract has been induced to enter into it by a misrepresentation (whether innocent or fraudulent) made by or on behalf of another party to that contract, they can claim compensation from that other party. In this case, the new owners were entitled to claim compensation for their losses, including the cost of purchasing the horse and the subsequent vet investigations. The tribunal found that the previous owner had made an “innocent misrepresentation” by saying the horse was suitable for eventing. The new owners were awarded a full refund of the $22,500 paid, plus $4890.13 for costs incurred in his care. It was a significant victory for the new owners, but it came with a cost. The tribunal also acknowledged that the horse had no residual value, as it was no longer suitable for equestrian eventing. The new owners intended to find a new home for the horse as a paddock mate, but the experience had left a sour taste in their mouths. **

Conclusion

**
The case highlights the importance of thorough pre-purchase inspections and the need for buyers to be aware of the potential risks associated with certain breeds or conditions. It also emphasizes the need for honesty and transparency in the horse breeding and sales industry. The previous owner’s misrepresentation had severe consequences for the new owner, and it serves as a cautionary tale for anyone considering purchasing a horse. In the end, the new owners were left to pick up the pieces and find a new home for the horse. It was a bittersweet victory, but it was a reminder that the horse industry is built on trust and fairness.