CME,

Here are a couple of questions that I and perhaps others that are following your ordeal would find interesting to hear you comment on.

When has Ibrahim Nkonde and/or Impanga Safaris said they will fully pay your $80,000?

Will this give you the time to get your lion/buffalo hunt booked in Niassa next year with your father?

What is Ibrahim's reason for refunding others fully but not refunding you even partially?

Do you feel Ibrahim asked for your last $20,000 deposit in April(and cancel in June) to reimburse Andrew's other hunters? If so, how active was Andrew in telling you to make this deposit? (A $20,000 deposit on a buffalo hunt seems fairly hefty. Especially when you already have $60,000 on deposit for the same hunt)

Has Andrew been in regular communication with you and Ibrahim, pressuring Ibrahim to get your money returned?

All the best.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
I find it rather pathetic that so many people think Andrew should reimburse CME but were not the least bit disgusted by Tim Herald's plea for us to contribute money to Stu Taylor - especially after he published a thread on his new trophy room.

"Shit happens; too bad for Stu" was the retort.

If Andrew is 100% responsible for the return of CME's money, then Tim was certainly 100% responsible for Stu's medical expenses and loss of livelihood.

No one ever stated Andrew is responsible or should pay or return the deposit….

quote:

If Andrew is 100% responsible for the return of CME's money, then Tim was certainly 100% responsible for Stu's medical expenses and loss of livelihood.

Uhhh…Tim “did” shoot Stu in the back. So, yes he should’ve been responsible for Stu’s expenses. Likewise, in this instance if it turns out that if anyone other than the operator received money, they, too, should be responsible for repayment.

Honestly, I’ll be surprised if the hunter is made while on this. As it was stated “shit happens, too bad”
I hope I’m wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Cme:
^^^^This is a perfect representation of the facts as they stand.

In my opinion, the hunt was sold with hopes and dreams and a big paycheck for the PH. Why else would said PH keep trying to push your hunt back, maybe to the next year? At the end of the day, this situation is all about greed and money and anyone that thinks the things done by Andrew weren’t solely in his best interest are drinking some special “kool-aid”.

CME do not forget that I negotiated a really good deal on a Lion and why not simply ask Ibi if I had demanded a commission? The fact is that I had lined up back-to-back hunts which would have been profitable for me and pretty much seen me based in Chanjuzi for the season.

I guess I’ll say thank you for getting me a good deal on a hunt that was never going to happen in 2023. I know you will find this as a shock but if you had sold it correctly in the first place then I would have never booked this hunt with you. I would have booked a different hunt in a different country for 2023.


Andrew, you keep mentioning the operator. If you hadn’t sold the hunts would his name even be in the conversation? It seems to me that if you are going to operate as a PH in Zambia you should understand what concessions may or may not be closed.

You sure are self righteous and love to point out the faults of others but take no responsibility yourself. It also took me bringing this to the message board to get you even the least bit engaged in getting me a refund, because a refund for me isn’t in your best interest.

Again, thank you for selling me such a great hunt for 2023!!!

Aside from the flagrant misrepresentations which have been put forth by Andrew, the thing that bothers me the most is the reference to the incredible deal he got you. Paying $80,000 for a hunt that didn’t take place and was never going to take place ain’t much of a deal to me.

If Andrew didn’t receive any money , which I doubt but have no proof of , I do not think he owes any money . However , he sold the hunt . He has an obligation to help get the money back .

It is interesting how all the other clients have been paid but not this one . Given all the misrepresentations, I wonder just how true that is.

By the way, I have been provided a bunch of the texts. Debating on whether to post them.

So the PH solicits and sells the hunt, in fact he touts the incredible deal he got the client on the hunt . . . then the deal goes tits up and the PH punts to the operator and it’s all the operator’s responsibility. How can you have all the frontend responsibility and none of the backend responsibility? Just seems disingenuous in my view.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around paying the entire cost of the hunt up front. $80,000 going to Africa to a total stranger up front?? Really.

quote:

Fact: Andrew has, unfortunately, “misremembered” several facts in this thread..
He “misremembers” reaching out to the poster proactively
He “misremembered” I guess what the term “selling a hunt” means
He “misremembered” all the discussions around the Fathers condition
He “misremembered” the poster asking for his money back
He “misremembered” the poster supplied the details to be refunded
He “misremembered” it was never an option to conduct the hunt late season with the father

That is an awful lot of mis-remembering......

And the dates for that last deposit looks very squirrelly.....

Martin Pieters had great reviews......right until he didn'1t....as did Hunt Inter.....

I just wonder about the refunded deposits.....were they AR members? Repeat clients? So they got taken care of first?????

quote:

Originally posted by Cme:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Cme:
^^^^This is a perfect representation of the facts as they stand.

In my opinion, the hunt was sold with hopes and dreams and a big paycheck for the PH. Why else would said PH keep trying to push your hunt back, maybe to the next year? At the end of the day, this situation is all about greed and money and anyone that thinks the things done by Andrew weren’t solely in his best interest are drinking some special “kool-aid”.

CME do not forget that I negotiated a really good deal on a Lion and why not simply ask Ibi if I had demanded a commission? The fact is that I had lined up back-to-back hunts which would have been profitable for me and pretty much seen me based in Chanjuzi for the season.

I guess I’ll say thank you for getting me a good deal on a hunt that was never going to happen in 2023. I know you will find this as a shock but if you had sold it correctly in the first place then I would have never booked this hunt with you. I would have booked a different hunt in a different country for 2023.


Andrew, you keep mentioning the operator. If you hadn’t sold the hunts would his name even be in the conversation? It seems to me that if you are going to operate as a PH in Zambia you should understand what concessions may or may not be closed.

You sure are self righteous and love to point out the faults of others but take no responsibility yourself. It also took me bringing this to the message board to get you even the least bit engaged in getting me a refund, because a refund for me isn’t in your best interest.

Again, thank you for selling me such a great hunt for 2023!!!

CME Please do not confuse the original shut down of the prime concessions with the second Tender of which Chanjuzi was again awarded to Ibi. The safaris were sold then prior to some no name individual slapping an injunction on the second tender which put a spanner in the works but was indicated that this injunction would be lifted as it was baseless. The original tenderers sued the new Government to return to the first tender and won this decision in court:

'The State however did agree that under section 69 (10 of the Public Procurement Act no.8 of 2020, a procurement entity had power to cancel procurement proceedings at any time preceding to notification of a contract award.

Justice Newa in her judgement rendered on May 12,2023, agreed with the applicants that the procuring entity in this case was the Wildlife Management Licensing Committee.

She said that the decision to terminate the procurement meetings was made at a meeting by the Ministerial Tender Committee held on April 29,2023. and chaired by the PS.

“ In this case, the director of National Parks and Wildlife could only have made the request for cancellation of the procurement proceedings for the consideration of the Wildlife Management Licencing Committee, which is the procuring entity, and not the Ministerial Procurement Committee ,as it was devoid of jurisdiction to exercise the powers of cancellation of the procurement proceedings,” she held.

Judge Newa therefore ruled that the said decision was illegal.'


Government then put its foot down and squashed all possible hunting opportunities

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Fact: Andrew has, unfortunately, “misremembered” several facts in this thread..
He “misremembers” reaching out to the poster proactively
He “misremembered” I guess what the term “selling a hunt” means
He “misremembered” all the discussions around the Fathers condition
He “misremembered” the poster asking for his money back
He “misremembered” the poster supplied the details to be refunded
He “misremembered” it was never an option to conduct the hunt late season with the father

That is an awful lot of mis-remembering......

And the dates for that last deposit looks very squirrelly.....

Martin Pieters had great reviews......right until he didn'1t....as did Hunt Inter.....

I just wonder about the refunded deposits.....were they AR members? Repeat clients? So they got taken care of first?????

Somethings I do remember











My quote - yes I fucked up when it was pointed out that the poster's Father had a medical condition but when I revisited our correspondence was assured that he was fit enough to entertain a Buff hunt

Clients were paid back or monies transferred to other operators upon receipt of bank transfer details.

I recommend the poster and Outfiiter continue with their dialogue and financial pledge agreement.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Aside from the flagrant misrepresentations which have been put forth by Andrew, the thing that bothers me the most is the reference to the incredible deal he got you. Paying $80,000 for a hunt that didn’t take place and was never going to take place ain’t much of a deal to me.

If Andrew didn’t receive any money , which I doubt but have no proof of , I do not think he owes any money . However , he sold the hunt . He has an obligation to help get the money back .

It is interesting how all the other clients have been paid but not this one . Given all the misrepresentations, I wonder just how true that is.

By the way, I have been provided a bunch of the texts. Debating on whether to post them.

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

I’ll let Mjines or Larry Shores post the texts messages that Andrew decided to leave out.
1-I asked you for help on multiple occasions.
2-In my correspondence with you I said I felt like I had no other choice but to wait it out since the refund didn’t take place in time for me to go on the replacement hunt.
3-I was trying to play nice in the “sandbox” to get my money back.
4-If you are going to post half of the conversation then you are going to look like a jackass again when the other half is posted.
5-Did you also forget about the multiple conversations we had on the phone about my father? The messages on what’s app regarding him are directly after conversations that we had. You know there is a call log on what’s app that will also support me telling you about my dad.
6-Don’t forget that you offered to find me a replacement hunt, after I broached the topic with you, and that was quickly put to bed when you told me another deposit would be needed.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Fact: Andrew has, unfortunately, “misremembered” several facts in this thread..
He “misremembers” reaching out to the poster proactively
He “misremembered” I guess what the term “selling a hunt” means
He “misremembered” all the discussions around the Fathers condition
He “misremembered” the poster asking for his money back
He “misremembered” the poster supplied the details to be refunded
He “misremembered” it was never an option to conduct the hunt late season with the father

That is an awful lot of mis-remembering......

And the dates for that last deposit looks very squirrelly.....

Martin Pieters had great reviews......right until he didn'1t....as did Hunt Inter.....

I just wonder about the refunded deposits.....were they AR members? Repeat clients? So they got taken care of first?????

Somethings I do remember











My quote - yes I fucked up when it was pointed out that the poster's Father had a medical condition but when I revisited our correspondence was assured that he was fit enough to entertain a Buff hunt

Clients were paid back or monies transferred to other operators upon receipt of bank transfer details.

I recommend the poster and Outfiiter continue with their dialogue and financial pledge agreement.

***You must have been good and drunk to post this because you just did the exact thing you told Larry not to do because it could be a breach of contract. I know this may be a shocker, but there can’t be a breach of contract on my end because the hunt not taking place as sold was the breach of contract. You were also notified of my request for a refund on multiple occasions. I see you chose not to post those text messages so that your narrative remains in tact. Good luck with what comes next for you.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Aside from the flagrant misrepresentations which have been put forth by Andrew, the thing that bothers me the most is the reference to the incredible deal he got you. Paying $80,000 for a hunt that didn’t take place and was never going to take place ain’t much of a deal to me.

If Andrew didn’t receive any money , which I doubt but have no proof of , I do not think he owes any money . However , he sold the hunt . He has an obligation to help get the money back .

It is interesting how all the other clients have been paid but not this one . Given all the misrepresentations, I wonder just how true that is.

By the way, I have been provided a bunch of the texts. Debating on whether to post them.

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

Andrew this is one of the single dumbest things I’ve ever seen posted. Especially since I’ve seen the recent implied threats behind the scenes…you’ve really gone too far now.

1) the “contract” was breached long long ago by the outfitter
2) the contract was either void or voidable from the beginning
3) the outfitted DOES want to remedy the situation and is trying.

YOU are making the situation worse and not better and I can’t even imagine why at this point.

So now one wonders why now are you making the situation even worse instead of trying to make better!???
Are you really trying to engineer a fake “contract breach” to put the clients funds in jeopardy??? Or are you simply repeating repeating something rather than advocating for the client…

One of the two things is true and both are really bad by you sir…
So strange since just a couple of days ago you said in writing that the situation was resolved…. So strange….

To the outfitter..who you are communicating with about this….
EVERYONE knows the outfitter was put in a very tough position through no fault of his own being wrapped up in the concession battle
EVERYONE knows he intends to and wants to remedy the situation
The outfitter has been treated here as. “A good guy in a really bad situation he didn’t cause”
If I were you Andrew instead of doubling down on your lies and Bs …..why don’t you communicate that
Because from what I see you are making the situation worse…for everyone including yourself

quote:

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

So, this indicates there was a contract between you and the hunter? Sometimes in a disagreement it’s prudent just to shut the hell up.
Just sayin’.

quote:

Originally posted by K Evans:

quote:

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

So, this indicates there was a contract between you and the hunter? Sometimes in a disagreement it’s prudent just to shut the hell up.
Just sayin’.

Yup. 100% agreed . He has no contract when it is in his favor . Then turns around and says there is a breach . Amazing .

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Aside from the flagrant misrepresentations which have been put forth by Andrew, the thing that bothers me the most is the reference to the incredible deal he got you. Paying $80,000 for a hunt that didn’t take place and was never going to take place ain’t much of a deal to me.

If Andrew didn’t receive any money , which I doubt but have no proof of , I do not think he owes any money . However , he sold the hunt . He has an obligation to help get the money back .

It is interesting how all the other clients have been paid but not this one . Given all the misrepresentations, I wonder just how true that is.

By the way, I have been provided a bunch of the texts. Debating on whether to post them.

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

Let’s see the contract Andrew . Is there one or is this another misrepresentation?

quote:

Originally posted by Kpoynter:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Aside from the flagrant misrepresentations which have been put forth by Andrew, the thing that bothers me the most is the reference to the incredible deal he got you. Paying $80,000 for a hunt that didn’t take place and was never going to take place ain’t much of a deal to me.

If Andrew didn’t receive any money , which I doubt but have no proof of , I do not think he owes any money . However , he sold the hunt . He has an obligation to help get the money back .

It is interesting how all the other clients have been paid but not this one . Given all the misrepresentations, I wonder just how true that is.

By the way, I have been provided a bunch of the texts. Debating on whether to post them.

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

Andrew this is one of the single dumbest things I’ve ever seen posted. Especially since I’ve seen the recent implied threats behind the scenes…you’ve really gone too far now.

1) the “contract” was breached long long ago by the outfitter
2) the contract was either void or voidable from the beginning
3) the outfitted DOES want to remedy the situation and is trying.

YOU are making the situation worse and not better and I can’t even imagine why at this point.

So now one wonders why now are you making the situation even worse instead of trying to make better!???
Are you really trying to engineer a fake “contract breach” to put the clients funds in jeopardy??? Or are you simply repeating repeating something rather than advocating for the client…

One of the two things is true and both are really bad by you sir…
So strange since just a couple of days ago you said in writing that the situation was resolved…. So strange….

To the outfitter..who you are communicating with about this….
EVERYONE knows the outfitter was put in a very tough position through no fault of his own being wrapped up in the concession battle
EVERYONE knows he intends to and wants to remedy the situation
The outfitter has been treated here as. “A good guy in a really bad situation he didn’t cause”
If I were you Andrew instead of doubling down on your lies and Bs …..why don’t you communicate that
Because from what I see you are making the situation worse…for everyone including yourself

Could you stop jumping off your high horse for a while whatever agreement CME and Ibi have would be an extension or modification of the contract would it not and the agreement binding? Its got nothing to do with you or I

How on earth do I make it worse for myself when I have strived to have all hunters refunded by hook or by crook?

Considering the amount of money involved this had to be handled with diplomacy not a mud-slinging match as you and others have initiated.

Better worded would be that Larry should not post anything that would compromise that agreement.

quote:

Originally posted by K Evans:

quote:

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

So, this indicates there was a contract between you and the hunter? Sometimes in a disagreement it’s prudent just to shut the hell up.
Just sayin’.

No the contract is not with me

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Aside from the flagrant misrepresentations which have been put forth by Andrew, the thing that bothers me the most is the reference to the incredible deal he got you. Paying $80,000 for a hunt that didn’t take place and was never going to take place ain’t much of a deal to me.

If Andrew didn’t receive any money , which I doubt but have no proof of , I do not think he owes any money . However , he sold the hunt . He has an obligation to help get the money back .

It is interesting how all the other clients have been paid but not this one . Given all the misrepresentations, I wonder just how true that is.

By the way, I have been provided a bunch of the texts. Debating on whether to post them.

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

Let’s see the contract Andrew . Is there one or is this another misrepresentation?

It is not my contract to share

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Kpoynter:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Aside from the flagrant misrepresentations which have been put forth by Andrew, the thing that bothers me the most is the reference to the incredible deal he got you. Paying $80,000 for a hunt that didn’t take place and was never going to take place ain’t much of a deal to me.

If Andrew didn’t receive any money , which I doubt but have no proof of , I do not think he owes any money . However , he sold the hunt . He has an obligation to help get the money back .

It is interesting how all the other clients have been paid but not this one . Given all the misrepresentations, I wonder just how true that is.

By the way, I have been provided a bunch of the texts. Debating on whether to post them.

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

Andrew this is one of the single dumbest things I’ve ever seen posted. Especially since I’ve seen the recent implied threats behind the scenes…you’ve really gone too far now.

1) the “contract” was breached long long ago by the outfitter
2) the contract was either void or voidable from the beginning
3) the outfitted DOES want to remedy the situation and is trying.

YOU are making the situation worse and not better and I can’t even imagine why at this point.

So now one wonders why now are you making the situation even worse instead of trying to make better!???
Are you really trying to engineer a fake “contract breach” to put the clients funds in jeopardy??? Or are you simply repeating repeating something rather than advocating for the client…

One of the two things is true and both are really bad by you sir…
So strange since just a couple of days ago you said in writing that the situation was resolved…. So strange….

To the outfitter..who you are communicating with about this….
EVERYONE knows the outfitter was put in a very tough position through no fault of his own being wrapped up in the concession battle
EVERYONE knows he intends to and wants to remedy the situation
The outfitter has been treated here as. “A good guy in a really bad situation he didn’t cause”
If I were you Andrew instead of doubling down on your lies and Bs …..why don’t you communicate that
Because from what I see you are making the situation worse…for everyone including yourself

Could you stop jumping off your high horse for a while whatever agreement CME and Ibi have would be an extension or modification of the contract would it not and the agreement binding? Its got nothing to do with you or I

How on earth do I make it worse for myself when I have strived to have all hunters refunded by hook or by crook?

Considering the amount of money involved this had to be handled with diplomacy not a mud-slinging match as you and others have initiated.

Better worded would be that Larry should not post anything that would compromise that agreement.

So now it is Larry’s fault if Cme doesn’t get his money back?

quote:

Originally posted by Cme:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Fact: Andrew has, unfortunately, “misremembered” several facts in this thread..
He “misremembers” reaching out to the poster proactively
He “misremembered” I guess what the term “selling a hunt” means
He “misremembered” all the discussions around the Fathers condition
He “misremembered” the poster asking for his money back
He “misremembered” the poster supplied the details to be refunded
He “misremembered” it was never an option to conduct the hunt late season with the father

That is an awful lot of mis-remembering......

And the dates for that last deposit looks very squirrelly.....

Martin Pieters had great reviews......right until he didn'1t....as did Hunt Inter.....

I just wonder about the refunded deposits.....were they AR members? Repeat clients? So they got taken care of first?????

Somethings I do remember











My quote - yes I fucked up when it was pointed out that the poster's Father had a medical condition but when I revisited our correspondence was assured that he was fit enough to entertain a Buff hunt

Clients were paid back or monies transferred to other operators upon receipt of bank transfer details.

I recommend the poster and Outfiiter continue with their dialogue and financial pledge agreement.

***You must have been good and drunk to post this because you just did the exact thing you told Larry not to do because it could be a breach of contract. I know this may be a shocker, but there can’t be a breach of contract on my end because the hunt not taking place as sold was the breach of contract. You were also notified of my request for a refund on multiple occasions. I see you chose not to post those text messages so that your narrative remains in tact. Good luck with what comes next for you.

That is between you and Ibi and I was simply informed that an agreement had been made and endorsed by you both. My posts do not relate to the contract but rather to the history of our discussions.

Did you really think I would put a gun to the head or piss off the Operator who was dealing with your refund? I know it is not an ideal situation but you and Ibi have a plan do you not?

And yes let us see how this turns out for me

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Kpoynter:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Aside from the flagrant misrepresentations which have been put forth by Andrew, the thing that bothers me the most is the reference to the incredible deal he got you. Paying $80,000 for a hunt that didn’t take place and was never going to take place ain’t much of a deal to me.

If Andrew didn’t receive any money , which I doubt but have no proof of , I do not think he owes any money . However , he sold the hunt . He has an obligation to help get the money back .

It is interesting how all the other clients have been paid but not this one . Given all the misrepresentations, I wonder just how true that is.

By the way, I have been provided a bunch of the texts. Debating on whether to post them.

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

Andrew this is one of the single dumbest things I’ve ever seen posted. Especially since I’ve seen the recent implied threats behind the scenes…you’ve really gone too far now.

1) the “contract” was breached long long ago by the outfitter
2) the contract was either void or voidable from the beginning
3) the outfitted DOES want to remedy the situation and is trying.

YOU are making the situation worse and not better and I can’t even imagine why at this point.

So now one wonders why now are you making the situation even worse instead of trying to make better!???
Are you really trying to engineer a fake “contract breach” to put the clients funds in jeopardy??? Or are you simply repeating repeating something rather than advocating for the client…

One of the two things is true and both are really bad by you sir…
So strange since just a couple of days ago you said in writing that the situation was resolved…. So strange….

To the outfitter..who you are communicating with about this….
EVERYONE knows the outfitter was put in a very tough position through no fault of his own being wrapped up in the concession battle
EVERYONE knows he intends to and wants to remedy the situation
The outfitter has been treated here as. “A good guy in a really bad situation he didn’t cause”
If I were you Andrew instead of doubling down on your lies and Bs …..why don’t you communicate that
Because from what I see you are making the situation worse…for everyone including yourself

Could you stop jumping off your high horse for a while whatever agreement CME and Ibi have would be an extension or modification of the contract would it not and the agreement binding? Its got nothing to do with you or I

How on earth do I make it worse for myself when I have strived to have all hunters refunded by hook or by crook?

Considering the amount of money involved this had to be handled with diplomacy not a mud-slinging match as you and others have initiated.

Better worded would be that Larry should not post anything that would compromise that agreement.

So now it is Larry’s fault if Cme doesn’t get his money back?

What the hell has it to do with Larry? Rumors now are that I have shafted a bunch of clients and run off with their money. Thanks for that

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Kpoynter:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Aside from the flagrant misrepresentations which have been put forth by Andrew, the thing that bothers me the most is the reference to the incredible deal he got you. Paying $80,000 for a hunt that didn’t take place and was never going to take place ain’t much of a deal to me.

If Andrew didn’t receive any money , which I doubt but have no proof of , I do not think he owes any money . However , he sold the hunt . He has an obligation to help get the money back .

It is interesting how all the other clients have been paid but not this one . Given all the misrepresentations, I wonder just how true that is.

By the way, I have been provided a bunch of the texts. Debating on whether to post them.

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

Andrew this is one of the single dumbest things I’ve ever seen posted. Especially since I’ve seen the recent implied threats behind the scenes…you’ve really gone too far now.

1) the “contract” was breached long long ago by the outfitter
2) the contract was either void or voidable from the beginning
3) the outfitted DOES want to remedy the situation and is trying.

YOU are making the situation worse and not better and I can’t even imagine why at this point.

So now one wonders why now are you making the situation even worse instead of trying to make better!???
Are you really trying to engineer a fake “contract breach” to put the clients funds in jeopardy??? Or are you simply repeating repeating something rather than advocating for the client…

One of the two things is true and both are really bad by you sir…
So strange since just a couple of days ago you said in writing that the situation was resolved…. So strange….

To the outfitter..who you are communicating with about this….
EVERYONE knows the outfitter was put in a very tough position through no fault of his own being wrapped up in the concession battle
EVERYONE knows he intends to and wants to remedy the situation
The outfitter has been treated here as. “A good guy in a really bad situation he didn’t cause”
If I were you Andrew instead of doubling down on your lies and Bs …..why don’t you communicate that
Because from what I see you are making the situation worse…for everyone including yourself

Could you stop jumping off your high horse for a while whatever agreement CME and Ibi have would be an extension or modification of the contract would it not and the agreement binding? Its got nothing to do with you or I

How on earth do I make it worse for myself when I have strived to have all hunters refunded by hook or by crook?

Considering the amount of money involved this had to be handled with diplomacy not a mud-slinging match as you and others have initiated.

Better worded would be that Larry should not post anything that would compromise that agreement.

So now it is Larry’s fault if Cme doesn’t get his money back?

What the hell has it to do with Larry? Rumors now are that I have shafted a bunch of clients and run off with their money. Thanks for that

You tell me, you are the one who is mentioning him, I am just trying to figure out why.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Aside from the flagrant misrepresentations which have been put forth by Andrew, the thing that bothers me the most is the reference to the incredible deal he got you. Paying $80,000 for a hunt that didn’t take place and was never going to take place ain’t much of a deal to me.

If Andrew didn’t receive any money , which I doubt but have no proof of , I do not think he owes any money . However , he sold the hunt . He has an obligation to help get the money back .

It is interesting how all the other clients have been paid but not this one . Given all the misrepresentations, I wonder just how true that is.

By the way, I have been provided a bunch of the texts. Debating on whether to post them.

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

Posting the text would not be a breach of a contract by Mr. Shores. He is not a party nor third party beneficiary that can cause a breach. The action would be a tortious interference in a contact. I am not making any representations on the merit of such an action. I am Just identifying the correct action.

One cannot breach a contract he is not party to.


There is no excuse CME has not received his refund long before now.

The big lessons here are:

1) do not buy from a third party, free lancer who has no stake or interest in the operation of the business holding the interest,

2) do not do business with someone half way around the world who demands full payment or even most payment upfront,

3) do insist on escrow and a cancelation with refund clause in the event the hunt is not conducted due to no fault of mine as the second party.

This whole forum clearly focuses why International hunters should NOT deposit more than 25-33% of Daily Rates ONLY!!

This debacle appears to have required full payment INCLUDING TROPHY FEES up front!!
Any time trophy fees are required up front, it should be a BIG RED FLAG!! If an outfitter/PH can't prepare the hunt with 25-33%... he is probably not solid enough to be in the business!!

On my first hunt to Africa in 1978, we did 3 safaris, 2 excellent hunts on different ranches in Namibia thru Volker Grellman, then we flew to South Africa... we flew on a DC-3 and landed on a grass strip in Palaborwa... no PH to meet us... first hint!! A van from Impala Inn just happened by and the driver stopped to chat. He took us to the Impala Inn, where they called the Manager at Lataba Ranch. He sent a driver down and took us to camp and offered us dinner at his home. A day later, the son of PH/Outfitter Norman Dean shows up... "his Dad took another 30 day safari and sent him up!" Manager warned us he wasn't qualified and shot 2 cow Buff with previous French clients !!
I gave him a chance... he was reckless with the car, almost throwing me out several times, and he couldn't find his way around concession without tracker guidance. We saw NO BUFF, and he had no clue about the agreed Leopard hunt off the ranch!!
I hunted out my deposit, 2 days, fired him and we left!!
I had specifically booked to hunt with then icon, Normsn Dean, he took a more lucrative hunt, and sent unqualified PH. We had booked with Very Knowledgeable agentagent... and we had options!! We left, they lost future business.
Son was later imprisoned for dealing in Rhino horn!!

This has clearly set my mind on bookings and deposits!!
This forum clearly solidifies what ALL INTERNATIONAL HUNTERS should expect, and act accordingly!! NO EXCEPTIONS!!

I have seen outfitters offer great deals with trophy fees paid up front!! Our host most often calls BS on these, and rightfully so!!

What if CME didn't get his Lion?? Then we would be hearing all of the CUDDA, WUDDA SHUDDA stuff and why it was earned and he doesn't get it back!!

COME ON GUYS, NO MORE UP FRONT FULL PAYMENTS!! You are killing all of your options and power if outfitters don't perform!! The good ones don't worry about payments!!

Wow!! What a shit show.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Aside from the flagrant misrepresentations which have been put forth by Andrew, the thing that bothers me the most is the reference to the incredible deal he got you. Paying $80,000 for a hunt that didn’t take place and was never going to take place ain’t much of a deal to me.

If Andrew didn’t receive any money , which I doubt but have no proof of , I do not think he owes any money . However , he sold the hunt . He has an obligation to help get the money back .

It is interesting how all the other clients have been paid but not this one . Given all the misrepresentations, I wonder just how true that is.

By the way, I have been provided a bunch of the texts. Debating on whether to post them.

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

Posting the text would not be a breach of a contract by Mr. Shores. He is not a party nor third party beneficiary that can cause a breach. The action would be a tortious interference in a contact. I am not making any representations on the merit of such an action. I am Just identifying the correct action.

One cannot breach a contract he is not party to.


There is no excuse CME has not received his refund long before now.

The big lessons here are:

1) do not buy from a third party, free lancer who has no stake or interest in the operation of the business holding the interest,

2) do not do business with someone half way around the world who demands full payment or even most payment upfront,

3) do insist on escrow and a cancelation with refund clause in the event the hunt is not conducted due to no fault of mine as the second party.

Thank you for that but neither you nor I know the contents of the contract or the subsequent repayment agreement. I would say about 50% of the concessions are booked by freelancers and their clientele. The big-name hunters such as the Stone brothers John Sharp, Theirry etc do not have concessions and book elsewhere

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Kpoynter:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Aside from the flagrant misrepresentations which have been put forth by Andrew, the thing that bothers me the most is the reference to the incredible deal he got you. Paying $80,000 for a hunt that didn’t take place and was never going to take place ain’t much of a deal to me.

If Andrew didn’t receive any money , which I doubt but have no proof of , I do not think he owes any money . However , he sold the hunt . He has an obligation to help get the money back .

It is interesting how all the other clients have been paid but not this one . Given all the misrepresentations, I wonder just how true that is.

By the way, I have been provided a bunch of the texts. Debating on whether to post them.

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

Andrew this is one of the single dumbest things I’ve ever seen posted. Especially since I’ve seen the recent implied threats behind the scenes…you’ve really gone too far now.

1) the “contract” was breached long long ago by the outfitter
2) the contract was either void or voidable from the beginning
3) the outfitted DOES want to remedy the situation and is trying.

YOU are making the situation worse and not better and I can’t even imagine why at this point.

So now one wonders why now are you making the situation even worse instead of trying to make better!???
Are you really trying to engineer a fake “contract breach” to put the clients funds in jeopardy??? Or are you simply repeating repeating something rather than advocating for the client…

One of the two things is true and both are really bad by you sir…
So strange since just a couple of days ago you said in writing that the situation was resolved…. So strange….

To the outfitter..who you are communicating with about this….
EVERYONE knows the outfitter was put in a very tough position through no fault of his own being wrapped up in the concession battle
EVERYONE knows he intends to and wants to remedy the situation
The outfitter has been treated here as. “A good guy in a really bad situation he didn’t cause”
If I were you Andrew instead of doubling down on your lies and Bs …..why don’t you communicate that
Because from what I see you are making the situation worse…for everyone including yourself

Could you stop jumping off your high horse for a while whatever agreement CME and Ibi have would be an extension or modification of the contract would it not and the agreement binding? Its got nothing to do with you or I

How on earth do I make it worse for myself when I have strived to have all hunters refunded by hook or by crook?

Considering the amount of money involved this had to be handled with diplomacy not a mud-slinging match as you and others have initiated.

Better worded would be that Larry should not post anything that would compromise that agreement.

So now it is Larry’s fault if Cme doesn’t get his money back?

What the hell has it to do with Larry? Rumors now are that I have shafted a bunch of clients and run off with their money. Thanks for that

You tell me, you are the one who is mentioning him, I am just trying to figure out why.

Read the thread

quote:

This whole forum clearly focuses why International hunters should NOT deposit more than 25-33% of Daily Rates ONLY!!

This debacle appears to have required full payment INCLUDING TROPHY FEES up front!!
Any time trophy fees are required up front, it should be a BIG RED FLAG!! If an outfitter/PH can't prepare the hunt with 25-33%... he is probably not solid enough to be in the business!!

With all due respect, Eddy read the tread and I am not aware there was any demand for trophy fees and this is conjecture

As far as I can tell, the only contract in this situation is the one between the poster and the concession owner.

Sadly, that contract and the owner’s promise to refund the deposit made under it have taken a back seat in this thread to blaming Andrew?

The poster and his friends need to focus their efforts on the contract he made with the owner and in getting a refund of his deposit from the owner to whom the poster paid it in the first place.

I continue to wish them the best of luck.

With all due respect to our host Saeed, I am not going to reply to this thread unless necessary till his safari is done. His annual safari is entertaining and this post is not.

With all due respect, Eddy read the tread and I am not aware there was any demand for trophy fees and this is conjecture[/QUOTE]

Holy Sheittz... if that didn't include the trophy fees.... what on Earth??

Clearly, hunting prices are out of hand in Zambia!!

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Kpoynter:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Aside from the flagrant misrepresentations which have been put forth by Andrew, the thing that bothers me the most is the reference to the incredible deal he got you. Paying $80,000 for a hunt that didn’t take place and was never going to take place ain’t much of a deal to me.

If Andrew didn’t receive any money , which I doubt but have no proof of , I do not think he owes any money . However , he sold the hunt . He has an obligation to help get the money back .

It is interesting how all the other clients have been paid but not this one . Given all the misrepresentations, I wonder just how true that is.

By the way, I have been provided a bunch of the texts. Debating on whether to post them.

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

Andrew this is one of the single dumbest things I’ve ever seen posted. Especially since I’ve seen the recent implied threats behind the scenes…you’ve really gone too far now.

1) the “contract” was breached long long ago by the outfitter
2) the contract was either void or voidable from the beginning
3) the outfitted DOES want to remedy the situation and is trying.

YOU are making the situation worse and not better and I can’t even imagine why at this point.

So now one wonders why now are you making the situation even worse instead of trying to make better!???
Are you really trying to engineer a fake “contract breach” to put the clients funds in jeopardy??? Or are you simply repeating repeating something rather than advocating for the client…

One of the two things is true and both are really bad by you sir…
So strange since just a couple of days ago you said in writing that the situation was resolved…. So strange….

To the outfitter..who you are communicating with about this….
EVERYONE knows the outfitter was put in a very tough position through no fault of his own being wrapped up in the concession battle
EVERYONE knows he intends to and wants to remedy the situation
The outfitter has been treated here as. “A good guy in a really bad situation he didn’t cause”
If I were you Andrew instead of doubling down on your lies and Bs …..why don’t you communicate that
Because from what I see you are making the situation worse…for everyone including yourself

Could you stop jumping off your high horse for a while whatever agreement CME and Ibi have would be an extension or modification of the contract would it not and the agreement binding? Its got nothing to do with you or I

How on earth do I make it worse for myself when I have strived to have all hunters refunded by hook or by crook?

Considering the amount of money involved this had to be handled with diplomacy not a mud-slinging match as you and others have initiated.

Better worded would be that Larry should not post anything that would compromise that agreement.

So now it is Larry’s fault if Cme doesn’t get his money back?

What the hell has it to do with Larry? Rumors now are that I have shafted a bunch of clients and run off with their money. Thanks for that

You tell me, you are the one who is mentioning him, I am just trying to figure out why.

Read the thread

I did, and if that is your understanding of how a contract works, you are sorely mistaken. I’m trying to decide if you are that ignorant, or just trying to muddy the waters with more bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Aside from the flagrant misrepresentations which have been put forth by Andrew, the thing that bothers me the most is the reference to the incredible deal he got you. Paying $80,000 for a hunt that didn’t take place and was never going to take place ain’t much of a deal to me.

If Andrew didn’t receive any money , which I doubt but have no proof of , I do not think he owes any money . However , he sold the hunt . He has an obligation to help get the money back .

It is interesting how all the other clients have been paid but not this one . Given all the misrepresentations, I wonder just how true that is.

By the way, I have been provided a bunch of the texts. Debating on whether to post them.

Larry just be a little careful of posting stuff relating to another's contract as that may be considered a breach.

Posting the text would not be a breach of a contract by Mr. Shores. He is not a party nor third party beneficiary that can cause a breach. The action would be a tortious interference in a contact. I am not making any representations on the merit of such an action. I am Just identifying the correct action.

One cannot breach a contract he is not party to.


There is no excuse CME has not received his refund long before now.

The big lessons here are:

1) do not buy from a third party, free lancer who has no stake or interest in the operation of the business holding the interest,

2) do not do business with someone half way around the world who demands full payment or even most payment upfront,

3) do insist on escrow and a cancelation with refund clause in the event the hunt is not conducted due to no fault of mine as the second party.

Thank you for that but neither you nor I know the contents of the contract or the subsequent repayment agreement. I would say about 50% of the concessions are booked by freelancers and their clientele. The big-name hunters such as the Stone brothers John Sharp, Theirry etc do not have concessions and book elsewhere

What other people do w their money is their business. I would not book through a freelancer for the debacle we have seen. No matter how we cut the cake, this is a debacle. I see no reason why this man has not been made while long before now. Others are free to disagree with that. Do I think you as the seller have a legal obligation to do the reimbursement? maybe under an agency theory. It is not enough to say, There simply is no vested interest to obtain recourse from a free lance seller if things go wrong. It is not your concession. It is not your company. I want to deal w someone who has an interest in the entity I might need to sue.

Again, new rule no 2, never send someone half way around the world 90 percent of the bill up front. A recipe for disaster. The Second Party has no leverage, and frankly suing someone in Zambia, Kazakhstan, England is beyond my personal skill.

The only way we could have a breach for posting communications is if the contract bars a Party from publishing specified details to 3rd Parties, or a Non Disclosure Agreement which is some justifications would have to have separate consideration (extra money paid for executing the NDA). The breach is still on the Party that so discloses to a 3rd Party and not on Mr. Shores. Mr. Shores liability, if there would be any, would be based on tortuous interference w contract. A legal theory that does exists, but is disfavored by the Fed Courts.

I guess one clear takeaway from this thread is that if Andrew advertises and markets a hunt, and the hunt happens to be a "freelance" hunt based on quota from an operator, you better think twice about relying on Andrew and his relationship with the concession operator to get your money back in a timely manner or if at all. You better get Andrew's signature on a contract or risk just being told that the fight is between you and the operator if the deal goes south.

There is not much I can add here and will cease comment as the Poster and Operator are resolving this matter and that to me is an amicable solution that has very little to do with anyone else

I wish there was a way to separate the Sam Farrow versus the Zambia/Andrew portions into separate threads.

I thought it was simple hijacking job Larry
Thing is Sam Farrow fell off the cliff and Andrew communicates therefore everyone piled up on Andrew…which is kinda sad

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
I thought it was simple hijacking job Larry
Thing is Sam Farrow fell off the cliff and Andrew communicates therefore everyone piled up on Andrew…which is kinda sad

And the ONLY reason for that was that the two sides stories were different and kept changing as more information came forward.

Andrew wasn’t piled upon, he was being held to a simple standard here that everyone is held to.