Consumer claimed that the horse he bought was non-conforming his expectations, namely, not suitable for being ridden and for participating in the dressage competitions. Pursuant to art. 7:18BW implementing art. 2 of the Directive, there is a presumption that the non-conformity existed at the moment of delivery, since the defect materialized within 6 months from delivery. The seller tried to deny the professional character of his business, which would mean that the sale was not a consumer sale, pursuant to art. 7:5BW implementing art. 1 of the Directive. The seller claimed that his business activities are not directed at selling horses, but rather at breeding, raising and training them. The incidental sale of horses could not make the business a horse-selling one, claimed the seller. The court disagreed. The sole fact that the main activities of the seller are not directed at sale of horses may not be a decisive factor in determining whether the seller was a professional one. What is important is that the sale of Pubertha took place within the business activities of the seller (the advertisement was issued under the seller’s business name), that the seller regularly places such advertisements online, and he admits to selling a few of the horses he breeds and trains every year. Since the seller was a professional one, the sale was considered to be a consumer sale, to which presumption of art. 7:18BW was applicable.