The horse appeared sound when you viewed it. After the purchase, however, problems emerged and a veterinary examination identified abnormalities. The seller denies responsibility, saying that they knew nothing about them and sold the horse as a private individual. Does that settle the matter? Statutory liability for defects may also apply to a sale between private individuals. Whether the buyer can rely on it depends on the circumstances, the contract and the evidence.
Polish law as at: 29 October 2026.
A private sale does not automatically exclude liability
This article concerns a transaction in which both parties act privately, outside their business or professional activities, and Polish law applies. This should not be confused with buying from a business. The fact that the buyer is an individual does not, by itself, make the transaction a consumer purchase.
The actual nature of the transaction matters. Describing someone as a “private seller” in the contract does not resolve the issue if they are in fact running a horse-selling business.
For a private sale, the starting point is the statutory liability for defects, known in Polish as rękojmia, under the Act of 23 April 1964, the Polish Civil Code (referred to below as “k.c.”). These provisions apply to horses with the necessary adaptations, because an animal is a living being rather than a thing. This follows from Article 1 of the Polish Animal Protection Act. [1]
As a rule, liability under rękojmia does not depend on whether the seller knew about the defect. Lack of knowledge is therefore not, on its own, a reason to reject responsibility. It remains necessary to establish whether the statutory conditions are met and whether the parties altered the scope of liability in their contract. [2]
When can a problem with a horse amount to a defect?
Not every difficulty arising after a purchase makes the seller liable. What matters is, in particular, whether the horse has the characteristics and is suitable for the purpose agreed by the parties.
The advertisement, messages exchanged before the sale, the seller’s assurances and the terms of the contract can all be relevant. Buying a horse for a particular sporting activity is different from buying one in full knowledge of its health limitations.
For example, if the buyer explains that they need a horse for a particular use and the seller raises no objection to that purpose, a subsequently discovered inability to perform that activity may be relevant to whether the horse conforms to the contract. It does not establish liability by itself. The cause of the limitation and when it arose must still be determined.
Behavioural problems also need careful assessment. The fact that a horse behaves differently after moving to another yard is not enough, on its own, to establish the seller’s liability. [2] [3]
Did the defect have to exist at the time of purchase?
The seller is responsible for defects existing when risk passes to the buyer, and for defects that emerge later but result from a cause already present at that time. This will generally be when the horse is handed over, although the contract and the way it was performed may require closer examination.
For this reason, the date of diagnosis is not necessarily the date on which the problem began. An illness diagnosed after the purchase may have been developing earlier. Conversely, the problem may have arisen only after the horse was handed over.
In a sale between private individuals, the buyer does not benefit from the consumer presumption that the defect already existed. As a rule, the buyer must prove the circumstances giving rise to the seller’s liability. Treatment records, earlier examination results, correspondence and a veterinary assessment of when the abnormality may have developed can be useful. [2]
What does a case involving crib-biting illustrate?
The importance of evidence is illustrated by the judgment of the Regional Court in Włocławek of 5 March 2020, case reference I Ca 159/19. It concerned a horse observed to crib-bite after the purchase.
The existence of the problem was not enough for the buyer’s claim to succeed. The crucial issue was whether the defect existed at the time relevant to the seller’s liability. The buyer did not establish this sufficiently to support her claims. The court considered, among other things, veterinary documentation and whether the timing of the problem could be determined. [4]
This decision does not mean that crib-biting can never give rise to liability. It illustrates the difference between proving that a horse currently has a problem and proving that the seller is legally responsible for it.
Does skipping a pre-purchase examination remove your rights?
In a sale between private individuals, the duty to inspect and promptly notify the seller of a defect under Article 563 k.c., applicable to sales between businesses, does not apply.
The absence of a pre-purchase examination does not therefore automatically remove the buyer’s rights. It may, however, make it substantially harder to establish the horse’s condition when it was handed over.
Not having an examination is different from knowing about a particular defect. If the buyer knew about that defect when entering into the contract, the seller is generally not liable for it under rękojmia.
A general statement that the buyer has familiarised themselves with the horse’s condition should not, without further analysis, be treated as proof that they knew about every abnormality or as an exclusion of statutory liability. The full wording and the circumstances in which the contract was concluded matter. [2]
Can the parties exclude liability for defects?
In a sale between private individuals, the parties may extend, restrict or exclude liability under rękojmia. The contract must therefore be read before assessing the available remedies.
An exclusion or restriction is ineffective if the seller fraudulently concealed the defect from the buyer. Fraudulent concealment cannot automatically be inferred from the fact that a problem emerged after the sale. The relevant circumstances must be proved.
Two questions need to be kept separate. Under the ordinary rules of rękojmia, the seller’s knowledge of the defect is generally unnecessary. Where the contract excludes this liability, however, establishing fraudulent concealment may be decisive. [2]
A price reduction or withdrawal from the contract?
The statutory remedies include a price reduction, withdrawal from the contract, removal of the defect and replacement. When a particular horse is sold, the availability of each remedy must be assessed with regard to the nature of the animal.
Not every defect permits withdrawal from the contract. Withdrawal is unavailable if the defect is insignificant. The seller’s statutory opportunity to remove the defect or provide a replacement promptly and without excessive inconvenience to the buyer must also be considered, together with the exceptions to that rule. Merely saying that they will “do something about it” does not amount to performing the obligation. [2] [5]
A price reduction is not an arbitrary figure either. The reduced price must reflect the ratio between the horse’s value with the defect and its value without it. The cost of treatment is not necessarily the amount by which the price can be reduced.
Any claim for reimbursement of diagnostic, treatment or upkeep costs requires a separate assessment of its legal basis and the justification for each expense. The buyer should not assume that every invoice automatically becomes the seller’s responsibility. [2]
How much time does the buyer have?
The statutory rules distinguish between several time limits. Two years from handover is the period within which a physical defect must be discovered. One year from discovery is generally the limitation period for a claim to have the defect removed or the horse replaced.
A declaration reducing the price or withdrawing from the contract is also subject to the time limits in Article 568 k.c. If the buyer first requested removal of the defect or replacement, the legislation provides a specific rule for when the period begins.
These time limits do not all have the same legal effect. Expiry of a limitation period for a claim is different from expiry of a period for exercising a right by making a declaration.
Where the seller fraudulently concealed the defect, expiry of the period for discovering it does not prevent the buyer from exercising rights under rękojmia. This does not mean that every possible claim can be pursued indefinitely.
Simply notifying the seller of the problem does not automatically preserve every remedy. It is necessary to establish what action is required and by when. The time limits applicable to monetary claims arising from the exercise of rights under rękojmia also need separate examination. [6]
What should you do when a problem emerges?
First, ensure that the horse receives appropriate care and follow your veterinarian’s recommendations. At the same time, organise the relevant documents.
Keep the contract, advertisement and correspondence from before the purchase. Collect examination results and treatment records. Record the handover date, when symptoms first appeared and when the problem was diagnosed. Keep invoices and evidence of expenditure. Notify the seller in a way that allows you to prove both the content and delivery of your message.
Before making a demand, check whether it fits the facts and the contract. A demand for repayment of the price, a price reduction and a proposal for an agreed settlement are not the same thing.
Author: Witold Łukasik
This article provides general information on Polish law and does not constitute legal advice on an individual matter. An assessment requires consideration of the contract, documents and circumstances of the transaction.
Sources and references
[1] Article 1(1)-(2) of the Polish Animal Protection Act.
[2] Article 6 k.c., Article 22¹ k.c., Article 43¹ k.c., Article 65 k.c., Article 548 k.c., Articles 556-561 k.c., Article 563 k.c. and Article 566 k.c. Polish Civil Code (Polish text).
[3] A. M. Juranek, M. Tulibacka, commentary on Article 556¹ k.c., paragraphs 7-8, in W. Borysiak (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, 36th edition, 2026, Legalis.
[4] Judgment of the Regional Court in Włocławek of 5 March 2020, I Ca 159/19, reasons for the judgment.
[5] A. M. Juranek, K. Kryla-Cudna, M. Tulibacka, commentary on Article 560 k.c., paragraphs 5, 7 and 22-24, in W. Borysiak (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, 36th edition, 2026, Legalis.
[6] Article 568 k.c. Polish Civil Code (Polish text).
Further reading
The horse sales contract in Poland and the seller’s liability for hidden defects
Photo: Arti Kh / Pexels. Illustrative image used under the Pexels licence.