One farmer has sued another for breach of contract over a cow he bought at a clearance sale.
The well-bred Holstein Friesian got sick and had to be sent to the factory. Its calf also died, Kilmallock Court in Co. Limerick heard.
The farmer who took the case, who represented himself, claimed for the price of the cow (€1,370) and veterinary expenses. The other party denied breach of contract and contested the case.
The complainant said he was a dairy farmer and attended a “public auction” in Tipperary Town in spring 2018.
I bought three cows – two were calved and one was in-calf, time up in a few days. I gave a good price. I thought they were good cows. I was upgrading my herd. I milked the two calved cows and put the third one in the calving shed. My own vet was attending another cow. As he was passing by I pointed out the cow in the calving shed I had bought.
“She was off-form. As she was very close to calving my vet said to leave her alone until she calved because she might lose the calf. She calved 10 days later on March 25, 2018,” said the complainant, adding the calf was “only half the size it should have been from a big cow”.
His vet came on March 28, 2018, to examine the cow.
“The vet said she had a problem with her stomach and gave her fluids. He kept coming every day for a few days to monitor her. She was not improving. I rang the auctioneer in Tipperary town and he gave me [the defendant’s] number. I told him the situation. I asked him did he want to come and look at the cow and bring his vet if he wanted to.”
The complainant told the court: “He [the defendant] said the cow had a problem the previous year and his vet had operated on her. He thought she was OK when he was selling her. He said he forgot to mention it at auction,” adding that the animal was bought “in good faith”.
I wouldn’t have bought her if I knew she had been altered in any way. I asked him to come see the cow and bring his vet with him. He wouldn’t do that. In the meantime the cow was deteriorating.
The complainant’s vet subsequently carried out an operation because it was “life or death”.
“There was throbbing in the cow’s jugular vein. He [the vet] saw the scars from the previous operation. My vet did his best to rectify the situation but the cow never got back her full appetite. She kept deteriorating. The calf never fully developed and died,” he told the court.
“My vet said the best thing to do was to take the cow to the factory to salvage whatever value I could. I got €423 at the factory. I paid €1,370 for the cow,” the complainant added.
In response, the solicitor for the defendant asked the complainant was it a public auction or a clearance sale, to which the latter responded: “It was a clearance sale but he took home cows that didn’t reach his value.”
The defendant’s solicitor said the complainant told the court that his client informed him the operation occurred on the “previous year”. The complainant clarified: “It was 2015 – three years before he sold the cow. I don’t know the exact date.”
The solicitor contested that there was “absolutely no problem with the cow”.
The complainant said that, at the auction, the defendant made announcements about which cows were on antibiotics, arguing: “It was a breach of contract. If I had known about the previous operation I wouldn’t have bought her. It is like buying a car that has been crashed.”
The solicitor said marts have certain conditions of sale. In a clearance sale, he said, the conditions are read out beforehand. “All items are sold as seen, no guarantee or warranty. Purchasers are bound by those terms of sale in the contract,” he added.
Kilmallock Court also heard that the cows purchased by the complainant from the defendant were well-bred, high-yielding cows.
“Yes but he withheld information. The cow had an operation on her stomach. I certainly would not have given the full amount of money,” the complainant responded.
The defendant then took the stand himself and said the cow made a full recovery from the original operation, saying: “Within a month, milk recording showed she was producing 7.3 gallons per day. It’s not outstanding but she was very consistent. Some milk very well and then drop off but she didn’t.”
He told Judge Marian O’Leary that there were no problems with the cow after the operation, and that his cows were sold under the conditions of the mart and “not under my conditions”.
“That cow was healthy. She got sick. It happens,” he added.
The complainant, representing himself, then began his questioning of the defendant, inquiring: “I asked you to visit my cow, why didn’t you?
“If a cow is sick she is sick. He neglected the cow. I’m not questioning his character. Fair is fair. I always treat people with respect,” the defendant answered.
The complainant said that if a cow has a section you have to announce it, adding: “It is good faith. It was an internal operation. I didn’t know anything about it.”
The defendant insisted the cow was healthy, and that “that breed has a larger stomach – any change of diet or any little change to what they are used to can affect them. They are a high-yielding cow”.
The defendant’s last witness was his own vet, who told the court that when you buy an animal at a mart auction you have 72 hours to return it if “you’re not happy”.
“At a clearance sale there are no guarantees. It’s caveat emptor [‘let the buyer beware’],” said the vet, who described the defendant as an “excellent farmer”.
“They are very fine-tuned machines and easy to put out of kilter,” said the vet, who added that he performed a left displaced abomasum (LDA) operation on the cow in 2015.
“We didn’t see the cow post-surgery. [The defendant] would have reacted very early if there had been a problem. Two indications of good health in cows are that she went back in calf and good milk production levels,” the vet told the court, adding that the defendant is “very conscientious”.
On the morning of the clearance sale, the vet said, the defendant asked him to look at two cows. One had just calved and the other had difficulty calving. He told the court: “They were not in ill-health, they just needed extra care. They didn’t need the stress of transport and new surroundings. [The defendant] didn’t put up those two cows for sale at the clearance sale.”
The vet said the LDA in 2015 was “unrelated” to the throbbing in the cow’s jugular vein in 2018, arguing: “If it were three weeks’ post-surgery I’d say something but three years, no. It’s very unfortunate.”
The complainant concluded by saying he bought the cow in good faith, was not told of the operation, and was making his claim under the Sales of Goods Act.
Judge O’Leary asked both parties to see if they could come to an arrangement while she rose from the bench.
When Judge O’Leary resumed she was informed there was no agreement. The judge said she would give her decision on February 18.