Infertile Bull - Judge may award €16,000

patsy_mccabe

A warning to all pedigree breeders;
https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/news/courts/offaly-man-sued-over-claims-he-sold-infertile-bull-38090994.html

Injuryprone

Think you might want to read the article again....

Sheep breeder

Might be no harm to square the game up a bit for some fellas, couldn’t understand why the bull was not sold in roscrea, unless Tom rafter was bidding.
It’s not that long ago the limousin had a problem with a lad giving Bute to stock before sales and caused a lot of bad feelings from across the water on purchased animals.

tanko

Has the case been settled in favour of the buyer?

Sheep breeder

tanko wrote: »

Has the case been settled in favour of the buyer?

Yes think so read about on line today and the judge awarded damages and costs to the buyer.

whelan2

It's a strange one apparently the bull had sired a calf before he was sold. Tbh these things are best sorted out out of court. This publicity wouldn't be good for the seller. Also the time frame of getting the cows scanned after the bull went in was a bit long, surely you'd notice cows in heat in the 6 months or whatever after the bull went in

charolais0153

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Might be no harm to square the game up a bit for some fellas, couldn’t understand why the bull was not sold in roscrea, unless Tom rafter was bidding.
It’s not that long ago the limousin had a problem with a lad giving Bute to stock before sales and caused a lot of bad feelings from across the water on purchased animals.

What's Bute?

charolais0153

If he sired a calf, surely the buyer has no ground to stand on. Caveat emptor.

whelan2

charolais0153 wrote: »

If he sired a calf, surely the buyer has no ground to stand on. Caveat emptor.

That's what I thought but the judge said that was no guarantee that he was fertile when he was bought...

tanko

charolais0153 wrote: »

What's Bute?

Phenylbutazone, given to cattle to calm them down at sales and shows. It's illegal. A well known limousin breeder from Leitrim was convicted in court of using it a few years ago.

patsy_mccabe

tanko wrote: »

Phenylbutazone, given to cattle to calm them down at sales and shows. It's illegal. A well known limousin breeder from Leitrim was convicted in court of using it a few years ago.

Phenylbutazone is an anti-inflammatory. I met that breeder once and he's an absolute gent.

Lime Tree Farm

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/news/courts/farmer-awarded-huge-damages-over-infertile-bull-38095254.html

Never wrestle with pigs

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Phenylbutazone is an anti-inflammatory. I met that breeder once and he's an absolute gent.

Bit of a prick move to do though.

Say my name

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Phenylbutazone is an anti-inflammatory. I met that breeder once and he's an absolute gent.

It's not for the human food chain though.
Hence illegal in cattle. Even when used in horses which it is licenced for. Their passports have to be stamped that it was used on them so that animal never enters the human food chain.
Anyone that has any association with cattle knows it's illegal.

Even anyone using it on horses are frowned upon as if not an emergency they are deliberately masking a problem. Horse buyers would take a very serious view if they found out a seller used it on a horse.

J.O. Farmer

The link from agriland where the buyer won

Check this out on Agriland - Farmer who bought infertile bull awarded nearly €16,000 https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/farmer-who-bought-infertile-bull-awarded-nearly-e16000/

Grueller

Big implications for breeders here.
I see problems with this case.
1. The bull had a dna verified calf on the ground.
2. Fertility testing technician believed above a vet. Veterinary society will not like this as we were always told here that a tecchnicians report will not stand in court.
3. Why did the farmer keep the bull from February 2014 th March 2016 if he knew he was infertile?
4. How did the man go 5 months from buying to scanning and not notice cows coming bulling every 3 weeks?

Any range of things could have happened here.
1scenario is that the bull got ibr on the buyers farm, recovered but went infertile for a couple of months?
2. Was the condition of the bull at the time an issue? A bull straiht from a breeders yard to working with a big change in diet/nutrition? Maybe not as it was June and grass should have been plentiful.

I can see an appeal from the breed society as there was both a fertility test and a calf verified. It is really in the interest of the societies now to do something. Maybe even a fertility test on the day of sale along with a declaration that the buyer understands the risks of buying a bull and accepts the results of the fertility test.

One thing is for certain, this case is not black and white.

Lady Haywire

Not this case but a vet friend of mine told me recently enough that he had fertility tested a bull who was returned due to being infertile. Bull showed up perfectly fertile in the sample the vet took & checked. This was after the bull was returned & costs paid by the seller etc. He figures the buyer took the bull home & just thought he paid too much for him.

So there's shenanigans going on out there for sure!!!

Hard Knocks

Grueller wrote: »

Big implications for breeders here.
I see problems with this case.
1. The bull had a dna verified calf on the ground.
2. Fertility testing technician believed above a vet. Veterinary society will not like this as we were always told here that a tecchnicians report will not stand in court.
3. Why did the farmer keep the bull from February 2014 th March 2016 if he knew he was infertile?
4. How did the man go 5 months from buying to scanning and not notice cows coming bulling every 3 weeks?

Any range of things could have happened here.
1scenario is that the bull got ibr on the buyers farm, recovered but went infertile for a couple of months?
2. Was the condition of the bull at the time an issue? A bull straiht from a breeders yard to working with a big change in diet/nutrition? Maybe not as it was June and grass should have been plentiful.

I can see an appeal from the breed society as there was both a fertility test and a calf verified. It is really in the interest of the societies now to do something. Maybe even a fertility test on the day of sale along with a declaration that the buyer understands the risks of buying a bull and accepts the results of the fertility test.

One thing is for certain, this case is not black and white.

Think I read somewhere that on investigation the bull’s penis was hurt & the seller said it must of happened at the buyers

Grueller

Hard Knocks wrote: »

Think I read somewhere that on investigation the bull’s penis was hurt & the seller said it must of happened at the buyers

And the buyer also said that the bull was mounting cows and everything looked normal so if he stopped putting his rod out then the bull must have hurt it in the buyers place.

grassroot1

To be honest I would side with the seller. I would expect the buyer to monitor a new bull for repeats. A fertility test is valid for a single snap shot in time only.
I think it is quite severe to be asked to pay for calves that might have been born.
To expect a breeder to be responsible for a bull that was sold such a long time is very unfair.
If a breeder sells a bull that turns out to be a very hard calver with lots of sections will they be held responsible?

Sheep breeder

Grueller wrote: »

Big implications for breeders here.
I see problems with this case.
1. The bull had a dna verified calf on the ground.
2. Fertility testing technician believed above a vet. Veterinary society will not like this as we were always told here that a tecchnicians report will not stand in court.
3. Why did the farmer keep the bull from February 2014 th March 2016 if he knew he was infertile?
4. How did the man go 5 months from buying to scanning and not notice cows coming bulling every 3 weeks?

Any range of things could have happened here.
1scenario is that the bull got ibr on the buyers farm, recovered but went infertile for a couple of months?
2. Was the condition of the bull at the time an issue? A bull straiht from a breeders yard to working with a big change in diet/nutrition? Maybe not as it was June and grass should have been plentiful.

I can see an appeal from the breed society as there was both a fertility test and a calf verified. It is really in the interest of the societies now to do something. Maybe even a fertility test on the day of sale along with a declaration that the buyer understands the risks of buying a bull and accepts the results of the fertility test.

One thing is for certain, this case is not black and white.

Don’t see the society’s getting involved in a private sale between two parties, they have had enough problems with animals sold under there sales. You say about buying a bull from a breeders yard to work a big change and do you not think the breeder has a part to play in having the bull ready to work as this is what the customer is buying. Most people let a bull run and scan when suits them. This bull was to work 22 cows and that is not over working. To many breeders are pushing bulls too hard on ad-lib meal and no natural development and something has to give.

Sheep breeder

Lady Haywire wrote: »

Not this case but a vet friend of mine told me recently enough that he had fertility tested a bull who was returned due to being infertile. Bull showed up perfectly fertile in the sample the vet took & checked. This was after the bull was returned & costs paid by the seller etc. He figures the buyer took the bull home & just thought he paid too much for him.

So there's shenanigans going on out there for sure!!!

This happened a neighbour who bought a bull for 15 cows and they repeated regular and got tested and was showing infertility. Breeder said get him tested again and same infertile second time. The neighbour asked would he swap the bull to get the cows incalf and no way would he loan a bull or swap.
The up shot no cows incalf for the year and had to Ai and bull slaughtered and no standing over the bull as agreed at the sale. The breeder can not sell a bull in his own county now as his name is gone for selling a bull.

the_syco

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/news/courts/farmer-awarded-huge-damages-over-infertile-bull-38095254.html

She awarded the Co Galway farmer the full amount claimed, €15,826.97, a sum comprising the value of the bull after slaughter and the value of 20 calves which had not been born, assuming a 10 per cent failure rate in the herd of 22 cows.

Has the bull already been slaughtered before the trial, or am I reading this wrongly?

Limestone Cowboy

Sheep breeder wrote: »

This happened a neighbour who bought a bull for 15 cows and they repeated regular and got tested and was showing infertility. Breeder said get him tested again and same infertile second time. The neighbour asked would he swap the bull to get the cows incalf and no way would he loan a bull or swap.
The up shot no cows incalf for the year and had to Ai and bull slaughtered and no standing over the bull as agreed at the sale. The breeder can not sell a bull in his own county now as his name is gone for selling a bull.

I bought a bull privately a few years ago. Fairly big breeder and after a week spotted a big wart on the end of his rod...rang him and was as good as told to f**k off for myself. Had to pay the vets to remove it and had 2 calves out of him in 2 years. Poor form and he didn't send a bull up this way since.

Donald Trump

I'd say that the poor fella that bought Benji the gay bull is raging he didn't think of suing!

Grueller

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Don’t see the society’s getting involved in a private sale between two parties, they have had enough problems with animals sold under there sales. You say about buying a bull from a breeders yard to work a big change and do you not think the breeder has a part to play in having the bull ready to work as this is what the customer is buying. Most people let a bull run and scan when suits them. This bull was to work 22 cows and that is not over working. To many breeders are pushing bulls too hard on ad-lib meal and no natural development and something has to give.

He must have only herded when absolutely suited as well as scanned to not see them repeating for 5 months.

whelan2

I wonder were the cows tested for lepto or anything? We bought a lim bull from a man in wexford years ago. He turned out infertile, we noticed quicker than 5 months.... He brought up another bull which he swapped with the dud.

grassroot1

A semen test only test only tells you if a bull is producing fertile semen. Lots of things affect semen quality. This is only part of what a bull requires to put cows in calf. He must also be capable of performing a service on the cow to fulfil his duties.
One of the implications of this case is that a breeder is now responsible for how an animal performs in a situation outside their control.
Breeders must sell a bull they believe is fit for the job.
Buyers must take responsibility to ensure the breeders are informed in good time of any problems

patsy_mccabe

This Is a strange case. Is there a precedent set by this now? Is there any onus on the buyer to monitor the performance of the bull? If a bull is sold as 'untested' do the same conditions still apply?

whelan2

I had a court case a few years ago luckily the judge also a woman had a farming background and understood the case. I wonder did she give any reasoning for her judgement yesterday. Or is there information we didn't hear

Anto_Meath

Neighbor of mine bought a bull off a lad with lots of adds on Done Deal, let him out with 20 cows after 2 months he noticed cows coming around again, got them scanned not 1 in calf, back to the breeder and was more or less told the was the purchasers problem. Eventually breeder sent his Vet to check him over and the vet confirmed he was infertile. All the breeder was willing to do was pay the difference between the slaughter price and what was paid for the bull. My neighbor contact the society as he also breeds a few pure breeds of the same breed. They more or less told him it was tough luck as bull wasn't bought at one of their sales where he would be insured against been infertile so nothing to do with them. After a number of phone calls the breeder agreed to pay an additional €500 to cover the costs of feeding the bull to slaughter. My neighbor was lucky in that he had another bull that he could run with the 20 cows, so now he has a batch of cows that are calving in May but it doesn't really matter to him as he finishes all his stock. If he hears about this case he could be talking to his solicitor.

Bass Reeves

Anto_Meath wrote: »

Neighbor of mine bought a bull off a lad with lots of adds on Done Deal, let him out with 20 cows after 2 months he noticed cows coming around again, got them scanned not 1 in calf, back to the breeder and was more or less told the was the purchasers problem. Eventually breeder sent his Vet to check him over and the vet confirmed he was infertile. All the breeder was willing to do was pay the difference between the slaughter price and what was paid for the bull. My neighbor contact the society as he also breeds a few pure breeds of the same breed. They more or less told him it was tough luck as bull wasn't bought at one of their sales where he would be insured against been infertile so nothing to do with them. After a number of phone calls the breeder agreed to pay an additional €500 to cover the costs of feeding the bull to slaughter. My neighbor was lucky in that he had another bull that he could run with the 20 cows, so now he has a batch of cows that are calving in May but it doesn't really matter to him as he finishes all his stock. If he hears about this case he could be talking to his solicitor.

If he took the 500 compensation it is likely that a court would consider the matter settled.

You can look at the case in the paper different ways. While the bull was proven to have been fertile on the breeders farm , the bull only having bred two calves(one of which is questionable as it was never DNA tested due to dying) rises possible question was there an issue at that stage with his fertility was he only with two cows is the question that the judge may have wondered.
The issue with the breeders vets report is that it was written nearly 30 months after the examination. Ryan had a professional check the bull fertility it is unclear what way the breeders vet checked the bulls fertility. But Ryan had two professionals who did not accept the breeders vets opinion that the bull penis was injured and damaged.

The real test is that the bull failed to breed any calf on the buyers herd. While some may feel that 5 months is a long time to wait for the scanning of cows and that buyers should have seen the issue earlier at herding I would not accept this. I have 15 store heifers and over the last 3 months I can count on my hands the number of mounting activites I have seen. Buyer would have taken no notice for first 6-8 weeks and isolated mounting after that may have been considered repeats for another 6-8 weeks so 5 months to find the issue may not have been his fault. His failure to breed any calf in the herd would point to there may have been an issue at time of sale

The real nub of the matter is there seems to be an onus on buyers not just in the case of breeding bulls but in lots of other mart and private sales to accept losses no matter how they were incurred. In this case the judge sided with the buyer so it opens up case law. The breeder has to pay up before appealing unless he gets a higher court to stay the decision. At present he is looking at a bill in excess of 20K between the award and costs. If he carries it further and looses the amount could double.

This however opens up issues for other farming sales. Marts have a clause about only having an hour after a sale to check if cattle to alert to any issue. What if the issue is not visible at a cursory check, I had an issue with warts on a bullock penis once and mart gave in on the issue when i challenged it. But it raises issues for marts in that they take money in fses from the buyer and the seller so this attitude of telling you to contact seller especially with data protection may not be appropiate.

It also put an onus now on breeders to make sure that bulls are sound and fit for purpose when selling just like garage selling a car, a shop selling a lawnmower or a dealer selling a tractor. The bull will either require a warranty or the onus will be on breeders to check bulls fertility before selling rather than throwing the issue onto the buyer

Grueller

Bass Reeves wrote: »

If he took the 500 compensation it is likely that a court would consider the matter settled.

You can look at the case in the paper different ways. While the bull was proven to have been fertile on the breeders farm , the bull only having bred two calves(one of which is questionable as it was never DNA tested due to dying) rises possible question was there an issue at that stage with his fertility was he only with two cows is the question that the judge may have wondered.
The issue with the breeders vets report is that it was written nearly 30 months after the examination. Ryan had a professional check the bull fertility it is unclear what way the breeders vet checked the bulls fertility. But Ryan had two professionals who did not accept the breeders vets opinion that the bull penis was injured and damaged.

The real test is that the bull failed to breed any calf on the buyers herd. While some may feel that 5 months is a long time to wait for the scanning of cows and that buyers should have seen the issue earlier at herding I would not accept this. I have 15 store heifers and over the last 3 months I can count on my hands the number of mounting activites I have seen. Buyer would have taken no notice for first 6-8 weeks and isolated mounting after that may have been considered repeats for another 6-8 weeks so 5 months to find the issue may not have been his fault. His failure to breed any calf in the herd would point to there may have been an issue at time of sale

The real nub of the matter is there seems to be an onus on buyers not just in the case of breeding bulls but in lots of other mart and private sales to accept losses no matter how they were incurred. In this case the judge sided with the buyer so it opens up case law. The breeder has to pay up before appealing unless he gets a higher court to stay the decision. At present he is looking at a bill in excess of 20K between the award and costs. If he carries it further and looses the amount could double.

This however opens up issues for other farming sales. Marts have a clause about only having an hour after a sale to check if cattle to alert to any issue. What if the issue is not visible at a cursory check, I had an issue with warts on a bullock penis once and mart gave in on the issue when i challenged it. But it raises issues for marts in that they take money in fses from the buyer and the seller so this attitude of telling you to contact seller especially with data protection may not be appropiate.

It also put an onus now on breeders to make sure that bulls are sound and fit for purpose when selling just like garage selling a car, a shop selling a lawnmower or a dealer selling a tractor. The bull will either require a warranty or the onus will be on breeders to check bulls fertility before selling rather than throwing the issue onto the buyer

Store heifers and a suckler herd are incomparable though Bass. A suckler farmer has 2 main jobs. Get the calf into the cow and get the calf out of the cow alive. During mating season I would spend a lot of time watching to ensure the cows are not repeating, doubly so if I had a new bull.

Anto_Meath

Bass Reeves I agree with you, I was only joking about my neighbor because knowing him he wouldn't want the hassle, he was happy enough with the €500 and the cows went on and calved to his other bull so the matter would be closed as far as he is concerned.
But yes there should be an onus on breeders and sellers to ensure the stock they are selling are correct and fit for purposes. There is something about this case that doesn't quite add up and you would probably need to see the full transcript from the court to fully understand why the judge came to the decision she did, I cant imagine a breeder would sell a bull with a know breeding fault as he would know right well it would land back at his door. The compensation for the calves that weren't born is the sticker here and while the €16,000 looks like a good amount it is probably only averaging the calves out at around €700 each so the farmer would still be out money in this case.
You are also correct some marts are two quick to say any issue isn't their problem and sort it out between yourselves and that is something that needs to be addressed.

Muckit

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

This Is a strange case. Is there a precedent set by this now? Is there any onus on the buyer to monitor the performance of the bull? If a bull is sold as 'untested' do the same conditions still apply?

Def two sides to every story. And sure nobody ever knows the full story.

But l would surmise that in legal terms, it's probably the same question was asked as anyone buying a product.... " Is it (he) fit for purpose?"

Why would there be an onus on the buyer to monitor the bull? It should be a given that he was fertile. He didn't buy as an ornament. Even city slickers know what a bull's job is!

The case really boils down then to whether or not he was "fit for purpose" at the time of sale.

Never wrestle with pigs

Probably also makes you think of how important insurance on a new expensive bull is also.

Muckit

Never wrestle with pigs wrote: »

Probably also makes you think of how important insurance on a new expensive bull is also.

The €16000 was no compensation anyways for that man if he was indeed sold a dud bull.

grassroot1

Muckit wrote:

Why would there be an onus on the buyer to monitor the bull? It should be a given that he was fertile. He didn't buy as an ornament. Even city slickers know what a bull's job is!

If the onus is not on the buyer it must be on the seller
Are we to expect breeders to visit the bulls they sell to ensure that they are working?

Never wrestle with pigs wrote:

Probably also makes you think of how important insurance on a new expensive bull is also.

I was under the impression it only covers loss of a bull not infertility but am open to correction.

J.O. Farmer

Muckit wrote: »

Def two sides to every story. And sure nobody ever knows the full story.

But l would surmise that in legal terms, it's probably the same question was asked as anyone buying a product.... " Is it (he) fit for purpose?"

Why would there be an onus on the buyer to monitor the bull? It should be a given that he was fertile. He didn't buy as an ornament. Even city slickers know what a bull's job is!

The case really boils down then to whether or not he was "fit for purpose" at the time of sale.

The problem is a bull is he can appear to be working yet not be. It is at least careless of a buyer not to monitor cows for repeats even if a bull was proven to work previously.

Also an expectation something works is not a guarantee. It just means the buyer has rights when a problem is noted. There should be some responsibility on the buyer to make sure it works.
You wouldn't buy a tractor and wait 5 months to see if the lift was fit to lift more than the arms would you. If you did would you expect to be compensated for hiring a contractor to draw in all your silage.

Caveat emptor springs to mind.

Never wrestle with pigs

grassroot1 wrote: »

If the onus is not on the buyer it must be on the seller
Are we to expect breeders to visit the bulls they sell to ensure that they are working?


I was under the impression it only covers loss of a bull not infertility but am open to correction.

You can get a cover for that too. Looked into it a few years ago but didn't go with it because I should have rang the first week I got him but I had him a few weeks at that stage.

orm0nd

grassroot1 wrote: »

If the onus is not on the buyer it must be on the seller
Are we to expect breeders to visit the bulls they sell to ensure that they are working?


I was under the impression it only covers loss of a bull not infertility but am open to correction.

it would cover if the bull became infertile through injury, would pay the difference between purchase price and slaughter value, nothing else


proving same would most likely cost a lot of the amount recovered unless it was a very expensive beast for pedigree breeding etc.

lthe premium usually costs 10% of the purchase price as well

Bass Reeves

Never wrestle with pigs wrote: »

Probably also makes you think of how important insurance on a new expensive bull is also.

Insurance will only cover the loss in value of the bull minus his slaughter sale value. It will not cover the loss in breeding value. As this case show all costs may be recovered from breeder if we take it the bull had a standing value as a beef animal of 800 euro.this would allow 14100 as calf loss value or 640/ cow . .Not huge compensation but fairly fair all the same

Muckit

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Insurance will only cover the loss in value of the bull minus his slaughter sale value. It will not cover the loss in breeding value. As this case show all costs may be recovered from breeder if we take it the bull had a standing value as a beef animal of 800 euro.this would allow 14100 as calf loss value or 640/ cow . .Not huge compensation but fairly fair all the same

Very poor compensation IMO and he still has to do the job of sourcing a bull again and the time and expense that will incur.

Mac Taylor

I fertility check my bulls prior to selling but always advise the buyer to watch the bull. If I’m expected to cover consequential loss aswell for a bull costing ~€2k, well that’s me out, If that was the case I’d have to inspect the buyers facilities, how many cows he has etc, applying some posters logic here I’d need to move in with the bull and charge A fixed rate by the number of cows, 20 cows - €20k.
I wonder how many lads I’d have queuing for my bulls then. Thank God, I’ve had no issue to date but if I did, subject to my fertility experts view, I would refund the full price.
I know no more than what I’ve read but it’s seems to be you had two bulls on either side of this case.

J.O. Farmer

Muckit wrote: »

Very poor compensation IMO and he still has to do the job of sourcing a bull again and the time and expense that will incur.

In fairness the compensation is probably about right for average calves once you allow the slightly reduced costs of keeping dry cows v sucklers. If the bull bred bad calves he would have the time and cost of sourcing another bull and no compo so swings and roundabouts.

patsy_mccabe

Last year sold 2 Lim bulls to a guy. Had them booked in for fertility testing and he told me not to bother. He said it was tough on them and anyway infertility could strike any time and usually due to running a bull with too many cows. This guy was well experienced with bulls as he used to breed them himself. He kinda put me off the fertility testing.

Mac Taylor

Jeez lads, this is nature we are dealing with, whenever I bought a bull I watched him to see if he was able to do his job, did a cow repeat, etc. I didn’t think bull is infertile, I must sue the seller for comp. if the buyer in the case had planned to let this one bull out with 100 cows, would the seller be responsible for the 100?

I must admit I’m surprised at some of the posts here, but then again what do I know:mad:

Grueller

Mac Taylor wrote: »

Jeez lads, this is nature we are dealing with, whenever I bought a bull I watched him to see if he was able to do his job, did a cow repeat, etc. I didn’t think bull is infertile, I must sue the seller for comp. if the buyer in the case had planned to let this one bull out with 100 cows, would the seller be responsible for the 100?

I must admit I’m surprised at some of the posts here, but then again what do I know:mad:

I think there is a divide to be fair based on experience within the thread. I would side with the breeder but then I have and still do breed pedigree bulls as a small hobby alongside my commercial sucklers.
Others side with the buyer as they have bought bulls and have heard the horror stories of breeders who are cowboys and may think breeders are coining it. Its all about ones perspective.

Sheep breeder

Grueller wrote: »

I think there is a divide to be fair based on experience within the thread. I would side with the breeder but then I have and still do breed pedigree bulls as a small hobby alongside my commercial sucklers.
Others side with the buyer as they have bought bulls and have heard the horror stories of breeders who are cowboys and may think breeders are coining it. Its all about ones perspective.

Agree a bit with you, but if both sides meet in the middle and quickly it solves a lot of long term heart ache. Many years ago when working in limerick for a big pedigree breeders family, was told by the wise man of the family than when you sold a bull he was carrying your name and your reputation with him and if a problem arose fix it quickly as it was the cheapest thing to do and sold more bulls long term.

farmer2018

What is the rights of the seller if a bull is fertility tested before being sold and passed by a vet, then the buyer comes back a few months after and says he is not fertile (no evidence provided). Has the buyer a leg to stand on if it went to court?

K.G.

If the test is within reason close to the date of the sale the only case he would have is against the tester.