High values, living animals, findings that need interpreting — and an industry with its own customs.
At its core, equine law is sales law, contract law and liability law. What makes it a field of its own is the subject matter.
Anyone who knows only the German Civil Code (BGB) will not get far in these cases. You have to understand what a pre-purchase veterinary examination (Ankaufsuntersuchung, AKU) does and does not achieve, why a single radiographic finding is not automatically a defect, and what a livery yard actually owes. This field has been with me since the beginnings of my own law firm in Neuruppin and Wustrau in 2012.
The most common dispute. After the purchase, a horse turns out to be ill, not trained as promised, or difficult to handle — and the question is: was the defect already present at handover?
That question decides the case, and with a living animal it is harder to answer than with a machine. When a consumer buys from a commercial seller, an easing of the burden of proof helps: if the defect becomes apparent within the first six months, it is presumed to have been present at handover. Since 2022 this shorter period has applied expressly to live animals — for other goods it is one year. This presumption does not apply to private sales — and exclusions of warranty are common there, but not effective in every case.
The distinction between a defect and a normal deviation is important: a horse is not a mass-produced item. Not every irregularity is a defect. Conversely, express assurances — about training, suitability for competition, willingness to load, suitability as a beginner's horse — may well amount to an agreement on characteristics by which the seller must abide.
The AKU is neither a seal of quality nor a guarantee. It is a snapshot with a defined scope. Disputes regularly arise when the scope was unclear, when findings were not communicated or were communicated misleadingly, or when the examining vet was also the seller's regular vet.
Errors in the pre-purchase examination can give rise to the vet's own liability — regardless of whether there are claims against the seller. This second line of claims is often overlooked.
The treatment contract with the vet requires proper professional treatment, not a successful cure. Liability requires a treatment error — and proving one is demanding, because it regularly requires an expert opinion. Cases of inadequate information are often more promising: if the owner was not properly informed about risks and treatment alternatives, this can invalidate the consent.
What does a livery yard actually owe? Housing, feeding, care — the scope follows from the contract, which is often brief or not in writing at all. Disputes typically arise from injuries in the paddock, changes of feed, failure to call the vet, or the termination of the contract, including rights of retention over the horse.
We draft these contracts for yards and review them for horse owners keeping a horse at livery. A clean contract prevents more disputes here than any argument made later.
For damage caused by an animal, the keeper is in principle liable regardless of their own fault — and very extensively so for horses kept for private leisure use. For animals that serve the keeper's profession or livelihood, on the other hand, the keeper can be exonerated by proving careful supervision.
Alongside the keeper, the animal minder (Tierhüter) may be liable — whoever has contractually assumed supervision, for example under a training/schooling livery or a care-share arrangement. Who is liable in a given case is one of the most frequent points of dispute in this field, and of considerable practical importance for riding share arrangements.
Sanctions by associations, disputes over registrations and pedigree, recognition of studbooks, rights to compete and disciplinary measures. Association decisions are subject to judicial review — often, however, the association's internal remedies must be exhausted first, and short deadlines apply to them.
Fees under the German Lawyers' Remuneration Act (RVG) based on the value of the matter — for horse purchases, that is the purchase price — or under a fee agreement. A particular feature of this field: expert opinions are often unavoidable and cause considerable costs. We calculate this with you in advance so that the costs of proceedings do not reach the amount in dispute.
Only if a consumer buys from a business. In that case, a defect that becomes apparent within six months of handover is presumed to have been present at handover (§ 477 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BGB). For other goods the period is one year; for live animals the shorter period has applied expressly since 2022. In a private sale, there is no such presumption.
In a private sale, generally yes — except for fraudulently concealed defects or where a guarantee was given (§ 444 BGB). If a business sells to a consumer, a blanket exclusion of the buyer's rights in respect of defects is invalid (§ 476 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BGB). The only options there are: a deviation regarding particular characteristics — for example a known radiographic finding — that is expressly and separately agreed and of which the buyer was specifically informed beforehand (§ 476 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BGB); for used animals, shortening the limitation period to one year under the same conditions (§ 476 Abs. 2 BGB); and a limitation of damages claims within the limits of §§ 307 bis 309 BGB (§ 476 Abs. 3 BGB). Young horses that have not yet been put to use are not automatically regarded as “used”.
No. A horse is not defective merely because its X-ray findings deviate from a physiological ideal, as long as it is clinically unremarkable and nothing else was agreed (Federal Court of Justice, BGH, judgment of 18 October 2017 – VIII ZR 32/16). The position may be different if the parties agreed on a particular X-ray class or suitability for a particular use.
The vet can be liable. The pre-purchase examination is carried out under a separate contract; if findings are recorded incorrectly or communicated incompletely, damages claims against the vet may arise — regardless of whether there are claims against the seller. Scope and time limits depend on the terms of the instruction.
The keeper of the animal — in principle even without any fault of their own (§ 833 Satz 1 BGB). If the horse serves the keeper's profession or livelihood, the keeper can be exonerated by proving careful supervision (§ 833 Satz 2 BGB). Anyone who has contractually assumed supervision — for example a training livery yard — is additionally liable as animal minder (§ 834 BGB).
Answers as of October 2026. They state the general statutory rule; individual cases may differ.
This text is a general overview and does not replace advice on your individual case. Which rules apply to your matter depends on circumstances that can only be clarified in a consultation.
