In a recent equine law case, a client of Schelstraete Equine Law successfully defended against multiple claims brought by a buyer following the sale of a pony in 2019.
Background of the Sale
Prior to the sale, the pony was stabled with a professional rider for training and competition purposes to enhance its market value. A pre-purchase veterinary examination was conducted, during which blood samples were drawn and stored. Following a positive veterinary assessment, the buyer completed the purchase, and the pony was transferred accordingly.
Post-Sale Developments
After arriving at the buyer’s yard, the pony was reportedly difficult to ride. However, this claim appeared inconsistent with the buyer’s own public communications. Social media posts, including Facebook updates, and WhatsApp messages portrayed the pony as performing successfully, even achieving competition results.
At one point, the pony developed a hematoma, which was treated successfully. Despite this, the buyer continued to report riding difficulties.
Dispute Over Lidocaine Findings
The buyer subsequently had the stored blood sample from the pre-purchase examination analyzed by a laboratory, which reported traces of lidocaine. Based on this finding, the buyer sought annulment of the purchase agreement, requesting a refund and return of the pony.
Schelstraete’s client responded by having the same blood sample tested by a different laboratory, which found no traces of lidocaine.
When the seller refused to rescind the agreement, the buyer initiated legal proceedings.
Court Decision
The court ruled in favor of Schelstraete’s client on all counts.
Firstly, the court accepted that the client — and not his daughter — was the legal owner and contracting party in the sale.
Secondly, the court found no evidence that the seller had knowledge of any lidocaine presence in the pony’s system. Importantly, there was no apparent reason to administer lidocaine, as the pony had demonstrated strong competition performance prior to the sale.
As a result, the court rejected all claims of:
- Deception (fraud)
- Negligence
- Non-conformity
The buyer failed to prove that any alleged defects — including riding resistance, improper use of the back, hematoma, dental wear, or other physical issues — existed at the time of the sale.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that the buyer had not demonstrated that any of the alleged issues were untreatable or permanent.
Finally, the claim based on unlawful acts was deemed entirely unsubstantiated and dismissed.
Outcome
All claims brought by the buyer were rejected, confirming the validity of the sale and the position of Schelstraete’s client.
The client was represented in this matter by mr. Joëlle Bongers of Schelstraete Equine Law.
Legal Assistance in Equine Sales Disputes
Schelstraete Equine Law provides strategic legal advice and representation in equine sales disputes within the equine industry. If you are facing a dispute, our team of specialized equine lawyers is ready to assist you with tailored, result-driven solutions that protect your business and reputation. Contact our team and discuss your matter.
