Does KS have any laws about misrepresenting a horse? Sound 14 yr old turned out to be a lame and blind in one eye 20+. 

Did you purchase sight unseen?  No pre-purchase exam?  Buy from one of those "killbuyers"?

Long story but from a friend of a friend. So horse was seen by the one that paid and picked him up, sold without papers. Horse has a brand so it took short work to find out that he did indeed sell with papers the weekend before from the breeder.

   If you purchased sight unseen and did not get a pre purchase examination done on the horse you are SOL. 

Even when I have all his details in a text about the horse? And it wasn't sight unseen because all money etc was done by the man that picked the horse snd saw it, a "friend " that also picked one up that wasn't what he was supposed to be. 

Typically, if you purchase a horse sight unseen even if you have the texts or info you were given about the horse it most likely would cost you more to take them to court and get a settlement than it would just just eat the loss and chalk it up to a lesson learned, especially if you did not get a pre purchase exam. 

So where you buying a papered horse in the first place but then when paid for and picked up he was sold without papers, kinda confused here, lol.. but thats not hard for me, I get confused alot on here, lol 

And another thing I was thinking about too if the friend did see this horse and accepted the horse when he saw him and paided for him without a vet check I'm thinking theres not much you can do about this.  Whats the 20+ stand for, is it for the horse is older then what was tolded it was? just making sure.

No I do not believe Kansas has any laws for that. I know there is the laws for such for cat/dog sales, but I don't know if they would apply to horses. If you would like to PM me I can send over those Kansas statues and maybe see if you can come across something that could be useful for this situation. 

Still, without a pre purchase examination done by a veterinarian you will be SOL.

I just know some states have recourse in blatantly lying. Horse will stay because a 7yr old boy thinks he walks on water.

Perhaps it may be a blessing in disguise if the horse makes a child happy. Stinks you got lied to though but people are so dishonest nowadays, it's hard to trust anything or anyone. Maybe itll turn out to be a total blessing for the 7 yr old boy AND this poor horse...

He's on aspirin daily to keep inflammation out of the eye in hopes of saving the good eye. We just had his teeth done. He'll live like a king, as do all the horses that keep my kids safe. Just ticks me off. I don't think this guy was a horse trader, just saw an opportunity and ran with it.

How long have you had this horse?

Do you have kind of contract in writing? Even a bill of sale? 

You can win a case with little evidence when the error are so blatant that writing wasn't needed. I just won a case against a builder and all we had wasa  simple contract that we both admitted we had changed verbally. But the bad work was so evident that we prevailed. And that was even with the guy who made the repairs saying he did not want to be called to testify. So we didn't call him.

It did cost me $1500 in legal fees. And that was a lawyer friend. He refused to pay after the judgement so we put a lien on his property. He paid in less that a week to get that lien off. 

But you gotta have something for proof. A copy of the check and the sale ad at least. 

Person saw the horse and accepted him as is and paid for him.  Seems to me the recourse would be with the guy that paid for him, not the seller.  

I'm so sorry this happened to you, but these were my thoughts exactly--wonderful home for the old guy and awesome "friend" for your son. . . 

If horse is going to stay, what are you going to take the seller to court for?

A lot of times it is hard enough to win in court to get your money back and have seller take the horse back; but seems to me it would be even harder to KEEP the horse AND expect the court to award you money back on top of it.

Sounds like someone switched horses. 

I would be questioning the person who picked up this horse. 

Maybe he has a horse with papers. 

If you're planning to keep the horse then you can not claim you are not satisfied with the purchase.  Unfortunately if you didn't check out the horse yourself, request and receive a pre-purchase exam, or have a contract specificially stating what you are buying (ie a sound, papered Flickachickawhata, 10 year old, 15.2 hand, bay gelding with a sparkle heart brand on L hip) then it's very hard to dispute that what you bought and received is not what what you were expecting.

I wish you luck and I'm sorry that this happened to you but this may turn out to be a blessing for both you and the horse. 

No real plans, just curious if there is legal reprecussions for misrepresentation. It's a small world and his name might get passed around as a turd.

Legal reprecussions depend on if you are willing to take him to court, what you want to get out of it, and how much you are willing to spend. For most people, it's not worth the lawyer/attorney/court costs and time to pursue. 

Yes, some states might have certain a laws on this, but you also have to check into what your state defines as an "as is" sale. If your friend ACCEPTED the horse on your behalf, then sometimes it's a done deal, based on state law. If your friend had any qualms about said horse (such as the brand, as you mentioned) then friend should not have taken the horse and instead stopped/reversed the transaction at that point. It's always important for your "representative" to know what to do if something smells fishy.

You are right that the horse world is a small world, and word usually gets around if someone should be avoided, but also understand your risk of libel, slander, or defamation for what you say, especially online. Obviously, we do not have all the details of what happened but that is something to be aware of as well.

Ultimately, if you really want legal advice for your specific situation, contact an attorney! (which I am not....)

Unless the suit is for more than $10,000 it would probably handled in small claims court anyway. 

Giving this a bump back up so just in case someone can answer your question on if KS has a law for this.. 

Was this your barn builder? You can PM me if needed. Just curious! ??

No sale ad. Just several text messages that say what his age is that he is sound etc. Like I mentioned, I don't have real plans of pursuing it, just food for thought I guess. I know there are states out there that are good about not letting people deliberatly sell a lame/etc horse. Curious if KS was one. I wouldn't think of doing this in a million years. The horse lucked out, that is all I have to say about that. He would end up a $300 kill horse most anywhere else.

I hope your son and that "walk on water" horse have many good years and memories to come

No, I would have never had that problem with the Howards. This was a deck and sunroom. They don't do that kind of work. If they did then they would have had the contract and we wouldn't have had the problems. 

This was a builder referred to me so I didn't check further. I should have. I'm just one in a long list of dis-satified customers. But the first to take him on in a legal setting. My lawyer advised me to not proceed. Not because we were wrong but he felt the guy would file bankruptcy if we did win and I would just be out more money. So I paid him a $1500 retainer with the understanding that once that used up and we had no relief I would stop the bleeding. But we won without using the whole $1500. Then we put a lien on his property when he didn't pay. He couldn't pay fast enough then. I suppose a builder with a lien on his property is behind the 8 ball?

I know a girl in who bought a mare off the track without xrays. She was naive and didn't even know she should probably get xrays. Surprise surprise, too much horse for her, so she sold her in an honest ad, with a contract stating the buyers had a week to do a PPE and return the horse if she didn't "pass". 

30 days go by and the mare comes up lame.  They take her in to the vet and find that she had at one point had surgery on a splint. They insist on returning the mare for a refund and say she will "never be competition sound." Seller says no, you took longer than agreed upon in the contract. They swore that the seller had the surgery done and had failed to disclose it, based on, maybe their gut feeling??? They sued, and even though the seller had every vet record under her name released and proved that she did not have the surgery done on the mare, the buyers WON. Her papers had to be signed over, they got some of their money refunded. 

And wouldn't you know it, they're now running the mare who would "never be competition sound." 

So moral of the story, if you could take this case to the backward CA court system, you'd be golden.