Cal,

I have never seen the contract, have no desire to frankly, but there seems to be this notion in some people's minds that the length of the contract in some way makes the contract suspicious and the agent (who I likewise I have no idea who it is) a crook. I assure you that virtually any lawyer can write a one page contract that is far more egregious than a comparable ten page contract. So I do not understand how folks that have never seen the contract can opine on whether it is fair, unfair or something in between. Larry apparently has seen the contract, in addition to yourself, so we have at least two informed opinions on this thread. As to those that have decided the contract is garbage because it is eleven pages, perhaps that is overly simplistic.

As to the agent not showing up here to defend himself, seriously, that is sort of like taking umbrage at a fellow not electing to show up at his own lynching. Pretty clear that the jury has already spoken on this issue and is actively searching for a rope . . .

quote:

As to the agent not showing up here to defend himself, seriously, that is sort of like taking umbrage at a fellow not electing to show up at his own lynching. Pretty clear that the jury has already spoken on this issue and is actively searching for a rope . . .

Thanks, Mike, for your reply. I think the above quote is correct but ONLY because the agent didn't come on here first. Several have seen the contract as I sent it to them before I posted to get an opinion. All said to walk away as the entire 11 pages is legalese such as the small part I posted earlier. After several pages of language, written by an attorney for the agent and needed to be read by an attorney by the client, is the paragraph about giving up any and all rights to any source of recourse is something when wrong.

Yes, you are correct, folks are searching for a rope or feathers (or both!) now but it would not be this way if the agent came on here to offer an explanation in good faith.

No one, you, I or anyone else, would sign a release if all rights, as posted here, if presented by a used car salesman.

I would imagine someone will post the name or the contract here as many have seen it and/or made an correct and educated guess as to the agent. I received an email that someone may post the contract on the threads where the agent is still offering hunts, or PM those who responded to his offerings. He definitely pissed off a few either now or in the past.

As mentioned, I have no argument with the agent and didn't post his name as it was my intention just to ask questions. I just smiled and turned away...
Cheers,
Cal

The type of contract you have been asked to sign is sometimes called an adhesion contract, which generally could be thought of as a take it or leave it contract whereby one side drafts the entire contract to their benefit and leaves no room for negotiation.

If you read enough appellate opinions you will see that n some instances courts will find these adhesion contracts "unconscionable", and will not enforce them. But those instances are usually when the party asked to sign them needs (rather than just wants) a service and has little or no other choice. (As you can see in this particular contract, the language went so far as to state that the person signing the contract agreed not to claim that it was an adhesion contract!!!!!)

The main problem that I see with any type of adhesion contract is that the person being asked to pay is usually asked to pre-pay, and unless the person pre paying can convince a court that the contract was actually unconscionable it would be exceedingly difficult to recover any monies in the event there was a breach.

Moreover, many adhesion contracts leave very little, if any, reason to claim a breach, because their language does away with any circumstances that would usually be considered as a breach.

With regard to insurance. When the concept of insurance began, it was for a the person to protect him or herself from loss. Now, the concept of insurance has crept a little bit to the left towards socialism. In many instances a person is not free to choose to purchase insurance to protect their self. Instead, they are required to purchase insurance to protect someone else or society from a loss. Forced medical insurance and some forms of no fault auto insurance are just a couple of examples.

Here, it appears that the party offering the contract is attempting to require the other person to purchase many different insurance policies to protect their own selves from loss in the event that they breach their own contract. Another way of saying that is "I might do something wrong so you better insure yourself if I do so I won't have to pay you". Sometimes called "bass ackwards" negotiation.

Good luck!

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

Finally, one of the law firms we use has a friend of mine who is a partner & a hunter. This is a BIG firm. I sent the contract over to him for his comments. His first comment was ,"please tell me you didn't sign this." After I advised that I had not. He said good and started laughing like hell. His next comment was something to the effect that only an idiot would sign the contract in question.

Pretty much all I need to know about this Mark H Young guy and his contracts. Good info Larry.

Thank you, Lindy. VERY informative.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Cal,

I have never seen the contract, have no desire to frankly, but there seems to be this notion in some people's minds that the length of the contract in some way makes the contract suspicious and the agent (who I likewise I have no idea who it is) a crook. I assure you that virtually any lawyer can write a one page contract that is far more egregious than a comparable ten page contract. So I do not understand how folks that have never seen the contract can opine on whether it is fair, unfair or something in between. Larry apparently has seen the contract, in addition to yourself, so we have at least two informed opinions on this thread. As to those that have decided the contract is garbage because it is eleven pages, perhaps that is overly simplistic.

As to the agent not showing up here to defend himself, seriously, that is sort of like taking umbrage at a fellow not electing to show up at his own lynching. Pretty clear that the jury has already spoken on this issue and is actively searching for a rope . . .

Mike:

I often find myself agreeing with you. But this time, I think the masses have it right.

There's no need for superfluous language in any contract, much less one for a hunt like this. So, if it's 11 pages of space filler, then it's crap for that reason alone. If however, it appears to be 11 pages of one-sided booby traps (for non-lawyers) as represented by OP and others (or looks like the one I read), then this is a perfectly good place to ask questions and vent frustrations.

As for the agent failing to appear or offer explanations, well that's his/her choice. But that's not sufficient in the court of public opinion. It's an absolutely fair criticism.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Cal,

I have never seen the contract, have no desire to frankly, but there seems to be this notion in some people's minds that the length of the contract in some way makes the contract suspicious and the agent (who I likewise I have no idea who it is) a crook. I assure you that virtually any lawyer can write a one page contract that is far more egregious than a comparable ten page contract. So I do not understand how folks that have never seen the contract can opine on whether it is fair, unfair or something in between. Larry apparently has seen the contract, in addition to yourself, so we have at least two informed opinions on this thread. As to those that have decided the contract is garbage because it is eleven pages, perhaps that is overly simplistic.

As to the agent not showing up here to defend himself, seriously, that is sort of like taking umbrage at a fellow not electing to show up at his own lynching. Pretty clear that the jury has already spoken on this issue and is actively searching for a rope . . .

"For example, if Delta cancels my flight, it is not the booking agents fault. If Delta loses my bags, it isn't the booking agents fault. The agent does not need that with me."

Larry:
You are spot on as usual. I understand and agree with the loss provisions. But, due to the legalese of the contract, if the agent or the outfitter thaws my bags in the creek along with my double rifle, I can't go after them for damages as I've signed any and all or my rights away. Would/could this happen? Absolutely not. So then, why the signing away of any and all rights of the client? As your lawyer friend said, "I hope you didn't sign this."

There have been nearly 3000 views and 100 replies to this thread. Should the contract be posted here? The agent's name can be removed.
Cal

quote:

Originally posted by tygersman:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Cal,

I have never seen the contract, have no desire to frankly, but there seems to be this notion in some people's minds that the length of the contract in some way makes the contract suspicious and the agent (who I likewise I have no idea who it is) a crook. I assure you that virtually any lawyer can write a one page contract that is far more egregious than a comparable ten page contract. So I do not understand how folks that have never seen the contract can opine on whether it is fair, unfair or something in between. Larry apparently has seen the contract, in addition to yourself, so we have at least two informed opinions on this thread. As to those that have decided the contract is garbage because it is eleven pages, perhaps that is overly simplistic.

As to the agent not showing up here to defend himself, seriously, that is sort of like taking umbrage at a fellow not electing to show up at his own lynching. Pretty clear that the jury has already spoken on this issue and is actively searching for a rope . . .

Mike:

I often find myself agreeing with you. But this time, I think the masses have it right.

There's no need for superfluous language in any contract, much less one for a hunt like this. So, if it's 11 pages of space filler, then it's crap for that reason alone. If however, it appears to be 11 pages of one-sided booby traps (for non-lawyers) as represented by OP and others (or looks like the one I read), then this is a perfectly good place to ask questions and vent frustrations.

As for the agent failing to appear or offer explanations, well that's his/her choice. But that's not sufficient in the court of public opinion. It's an absolutely fair criticism.

Most of the contract is not a problem in spite of its length. It discusses things that are obvious to most normal people. The problematic area is relatively small in terms of length.

Don't judge a contract solely by its length. Judge it by its content and intent.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by tygersman:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Cal,

I have never seen the contract, have no desire to frankly, but there seems to be this notion in some people's minds that the length of the contract in some way makes the contract suspicious and the agent (who I likewise I have no idea who it is) a crook. I assure you that virtually any lawyer can write a one page contract that is far more egregious than a comparable ten page contract. So I do not understand how folks that have never seen the contract can opine on whether it is fair, unfair or something in between. Larry apparently has seen the contract, in addition to yourself, so we have at least two informed opinions on this thread. As to those that have decided the contract is garbage because it is eleven pages, perhaps that is overly simplistic.

As to the agent not showing up here to defend himself, seriously, that is sort of like taking umbrage at a fellow not electing to show up at his own lynching. Pretty clear that the jury has already spoken on this issue and is actively searching for a rope . . .

Mike:

I often find myself agreeing with you. But this time, I think the masses have it right.

There's no need for superfluous language in any contract, much less one for a hunt like this. So, if it's 11 pages of space filler, then it's crap for that reason alone. If however, it appears to be 11 pages of one-sided booby traps (for non-lawyers) as represented by OP and others (or looks like the one I read), then this is a perfectly good place to ask questions and vent frustrations.

As for the agent failing to appear or offer explanations, well that's his/her choice. But that's not sufficient in the court of public opinion. It's an absolutely fair criticism.

Most of the contract is not a problem in spite of its length. It discusses things that are obvious to most normal people. The problematic area is relatively small in terms of length.

Don't judge a contract solely by its length. Judge it by its content and intent.

Larry:

I agree. But I don't recall a time I've drafted or reviewed a contract when it wasn't better after editing out all of the superfluous language and unnecessary crap.

I think Mark Twain said: “I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”

I suggest the same concept often applies to simple contracts.

outside view as a hunter but never been on a guided hunt so I have never seen a hunt contract:

I am glad this thread was started, myself or someone else potentially could have booked this as their first hunt and just said "hey i see this guy's name all over AR, usually offering some good hunts, no one has run him off yet, I guess an 11 page 1 sided contract is the norm for the industry"

personally I don't have anything wrong with 11 pages, or 2 pages, I don't have anything wrong with the agent but the way the contract is lopsided I think is where everyone is having the problem as it seems as though it would be too easy to be taken advantage of and lose hard earned money while having the contract waved in my face saying "but you signed it"

I personally would hold more respect for the agent if he/she came on and said "hey here is why I hired a lawyer to draft it in such a manner" I may not agree with the contract or the reasoning but there would be more respect.


on the plus side, a few other agents have gotten some positive publicity out of this thread by taking care of their clients

Cal,

I have always enjoyed your posts and your sharing your experience, but IMO if you are gonna publically call a man out on the carpet over his business practices, nut up and name him. Thinly veiled hinting isn't right.

If you are going to call him on the carpet and refuse to name him, that is chickenshit. Either name him, or apologize and give it up.

Cal,

I don't know you from Adam, but thank you.

I don't need a name. All I need to know is that if I ever get a lengthy contract for a hunt or a _________ (fill in the blank) that I don't understand, I am free to make an intelligent informed decision and accept it or walk away. I don't need to be spoon fed or told who is a baaaad man - I'm a reasonably intelligent hunter who can make my own decisions without the opinions of the peanut gallery.

I have seen several similar agreements, and just hitched up my big boy pants and made a decision about the content of the document and character of the profferer. As others have said - the length of the document isn't damning evidence that the outfitter is a thief, child molester, or knave - just overly cautious. Even in this cry-baby litigious world that still isn't a crime.

You asked for an opinion, and provided enough information to make skeptics beware - any thing beyond that is childish.

Bless you,

Dave

quote:

I think Mark Twain said: “I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.” I suggest the same concept often applies to simple contracts.

And, surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, one of the reasons why some contracts or other legal documents are so long is because some lawyers (especially new ones) are afraid they have left something out so they put everything, including the kitchen sink, in there to cover their own ass.

By the way, on a deal like this the court of public opinion isn't going to mean much. Rather, the verdict in the district court where the lawsuit is brought is where you will get some meaning!

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:

By the way, on a deal like this the court of public opinion isn't going to mean much. Rather, the verdict in the district court where the lawsuit is brought is where you will get some meaning!

Uh, if you think the court of public opinion doesn't mean much, then you must not be familiar with social media, or advertising, or politics, or lobbying, or any number of other incredibly important things that directly affect us all without the need for a courtroom.

Bad press can't be good for the agent business ....

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:

And, surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, one of the reasons why some contracts or other legal documents are so long is because some lawyers (especially new ones) are afraid they have left something out so they put everything, including the kitchen sink, in there to cover their own ass.

The reason legal documents are so long is driven far more by litigious clients than by lawyers drafting contracts. Go back 50 years and look at the contracts from that era, they were much simpler and shorter (in part because the government tended to mind it's own business). Were the lawyers that drafted those agreements dumber than the lawyers today in anticipating problems? Hardly. Folks spent less time in that era trying to shift personal responsibility to others. As that dynamic changed, contracts got longer and more complicated . . . in order to address the myriad of arguments that clients and their litigators kept coming up with to get out of agreements, to leverage a renegotiation, to shift a loss to someone else, etc. So today contracts seek to address every likely contingency in order to give certainty to the parties and leave less to the vagaries of client-instituted litigation. Lots of irony in this thread, but another ironic fact is that those folks arguing for a one page contract are likely in most cases to be taking on more risk if things go tits up than those signing a longer contract . . .

quote:

Uh, if you think the court of public opinion doesn't mean much, then you must not be familiar with social media, or advertising, or politics, or lobbying, or any number of other incredibly important things that directly affect us all without the need for a courtroom.Bad press can't be good for the agent business ....

Yes, those things do have an effect. Of course they do. But in any individual case, after the money has been spent, no amount of media is going to get it back, whereas one may have a slight chance for garnishment or levy or something like that if you have a court order.

And yes, I agree that long contracts are sometimes driven by litigious clients, and as I said in a slightly different way, by lawyers who do not want to get sued for malpractice by their litigious clients.

In my opinion, Cal posted this as a learning experience for him. I think he in fact learned a few things . He didn't post to hammer anyone . I would not post the name if I were Cal.

I think folks are getting caught up on the length of the contract but the issue I see is that there is a guy utilizing a free online forum, courtesy of Saeed, to make money and sell hunts but when another member that uses the same forum to gain knowledge and find hunt opportunities wants to ask a question about a contract that was sent to him he is told that he will not be booked if he asks for opinions. That's what stands out to me and I'm not hammering on The agent as he has yet to tell his side of the story but online forums are the best place for a lot of guys to be able to educate themselves on these types of things.

If you want to use a free online discussion forum to sell hunts you should be prepared to have people ask for opinions on the very same forum. I could not imagine a scenario where I would not encourage a guy to fully understand a hunt or a contract.

I don't fault The agent for protecting himself with a contract even though the contract is something I would personally never sign and I don't fault Cal for wanting to have a better understanding of the contract. No harm, no foul on either side there. It's the "trust me" mentality and the unwillingness to want a potential client to be understanding of all aspects of the booking that raises a red flag for me.

Maybe the booking agent can shed some light on it...

quote:

Originally posted by tygersman:

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:

By the way, on a deal like this the court of public opinion isn't going to mean much. Rather, the verdict in the district court where the lawsuit is brought is where you will get some meaning!

Uh, if you think the court of public opinion doesn't mean much, then you must not be familiar with social media, or advertising, or politics, or lobbying, or any number of other incredibly important things that directly affect us all without the need for a courtroom.

Bad press can't be good for the agent business ....

Tygersman, all I know is I thought you were dead!

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:
I think folks are getting caught up on the length of the contract but the issue I see is that there is a guy utilizing a free online forum, courtesy of Saeed, to make money and sell hunts but when another member that uses the same forum to gain knowledge and find hunt opportunities wants to ask a question about a contract that was sent to him he is told that he will not be booked if he asks for opinions. That's what stands out to me and I'm not hammering on The agent as he has yet to tell his side of the story but online forums are the best place for a lot of guys to be able to educate themselves on these types of things.

If you want to use a free online discussion forum to sell hunts you should be prepared to have people ask for opinions on the very same forum. I could not imagine a scenario where I would not encourage a guy to fully understand a hunt or a contract.

I don't fault The agent for protecting himself with a contract even though the contract is something I would personally never sign and I don't fault Cal for wanting to have a better understanding of the contract. No harm, no foul on either side there. It's the "trust me" mentality and the unwillingness to want a potential client to be understanding of all aspects of the booking that raises a red flag for me.

Maybe the booking agent can shed some light on it...

Well said

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

Tygersman, all I know is I thought you were dead!

Not yet. Older, fatter and slower, but still tearing it up.

When are you taking me hunting for Mr. Spots?

My question is Why has this contract never been discussed before. Somebody on here has booked with the Outfitter before.

quote:

Originally posted by J.R.Jackson:
My question is Why has this contract never been discussed before. Somebody on here has booked with the Outfitter before.

This is only a partial answer, but a good many folks I speak to about this issue who have booked a hunt with the agent in question have told me they just sign the contract and don't read a thing. I had this conversation today. A gent booked the hunt, probably signed the same contract, and was surprised he signed away all of his legal rights. He simply didn't read the document. He can't cancel if he reads it now as he will forfeit all of his money.
Cal

I used the person in question in 2010 for a Texas Pronghorn hunt.

I don't recall the contract being lengthy and I had zero issues with the service provided.

As a matter of fact he was very helpful and answered any and all of my questions about the upcoming hunt and gave me the best estimation anyone has ever given me on what to budget "truly" for a possible future 10 day African PG hunt.

He has since then been supportive in other questions I have had about this and that.

I definitely have no doubt that he is good guy and has possibly put this contract together from experience of past clients. Probably being forced to add protection from time to time....but this is just my opinion and nothing more

Who is this person in question? all seem to know but do not name him? Will he bite? If not just name him since he does not want to speak on here.

A lot of the fuss being made here seems to be lost on me.

If you don't like what's in the contract, can't read it, don't agree with it, are suspicious of it's limiting factors or don't want to sign it why not just MOVE ON.

Is it not enough that you don't agree with, or simply don't accept, another individual's business practice that you first have to dictate to them that they must come on to this Kangaroo court and DEFEND their chosen practices.

Vote with your feet and your wallet and let others make the same choice FOR THEMSELVES.

What does the contract say about cold beer in camp?

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Truccolo:
A lot of the fuss being made here seems to be lost on me.

If you don't like what's in the contract, can't read it, don't agree with it, are suspicious of it's limiting factors or don't want to sign it why not just MOVE ON.

Is it not enough that you don't agree with, or simply don't accept, another individual's business practice that you first have to dictate to them that they must come on to this Kangaroo court and DEFEND their chosen practices.

Vote with your feet and your wallet and let others make the same choice FOR THEMSELVES.

i read the original post as "is this a normal contract as I feel uneasy about it"

then as the thread went on it became very educational for a rookie hunter to understand what one may expect to see in a contract

Educational?

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Truccolo:
A lot of the fuss being made here seems to be lost on me.

If you don't like what's in the contract, can't read it, don't agree with it, are suspicious of it's limiting factors or don't want to sign it why not just MOVE ON.

Is it not enough that you don't agree with, or simply don't accept, another individual's business practice that you first have to dictate to them that they must come on to this Kangaroo court and DEFEND their chosen practices.

Vote with your feet and your wallet and let others make the same choice FOR THEMSELVES.

Couldn't agree more.

quote:

Originally posted by Joe Savikataaq Jr:
Who is this person in question? all seem to know but do not name him? Will he bite? If not just name him since he does not want to speak on here.

Reading through the posts, it is obvious they are referring to Mark Young.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Cal,

I have never seen the contract , have no desire to frankly, but there seems to be this notion in some people's minds that the length of the contract in some way makes the contract suspicious and the agent (who I likewise I have no idea who it is) a crook .

Mike,

I didn't see where Cal called anyone a crook. He was concerned about the content and also length of the contract. It's seems his other stated concern was the "we are not going to screw you" and "you have to trust." That and the warning not to consult AR members.

You say you didn't read the contract. This part was copy and posted by Cal.

5.2 BY SIGNING ON THE SIGNATURE PAGE OF THIS AGREEMENT, I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT AND FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS CONTENTS AND THE TYPE OF RISKS INHERENT IN SUCH TRIPS. IN CONSIDERATION OF, AND AS PART PAYMENT FOR THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS TRIP, AND THE ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO HUNTING), TRANSPORTATION, SERVICES AND FOOD ARRANGED FOR ME BY THE COMPANY, THE OUTFITTER/SAFARI OPERATOR, OR THE SUPPLIERS. I, THE CLIENT, (THE RELEASOR) AGREE ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND ANY MINORS ACCOMPANYING ME TO INDEMNIFY, HOLD HARMLESS AND RELEASE THE COMPANY, ITS OWNERS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, ASSOCIATES, AND THE OUTFITTER/SAFARI OPERATOR AND ITS OWNERS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, ASSOCIATES (HEREINAFTER COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS THE RELEASEES) FOR ANY ACCIDENTS, CLAIMS, LOSSES, DAMAGES OR LIABILITIES, INCLUDING DEATH, DISABILITY, INJURY OR LOSS OR DAMAGE TO RELEASEOR OR RELEASOR’S MINOR CHILD OR RELEASOR’S PROPERTY, WHICH MIGHT OCCUR DURING THE ACTIVITIES OF THIS TRIP, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THOSE LOSSES ARISING OUT OF THE JOINT OR CONCURRENT, ACTIVE OR PASSIVE NEGLIGENCE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE, ACTIONS, WRONGFUL ACTS, OMISSION AND OR STRICT LIABILITY OF RELEASEES. I EXPRESSLY WAIVE ANY SUCH RIGHT TO RECOVER FOR THESE MATTERS. I EXPRESSLY ASSUME ANY AND ALL SUCH RISKS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIVITIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND AGREE NOT TO SUE OR MAKE CLAIM AGAINST ALL THE RELEASEES ON ACCOUNT OF _______________  ANY SUCH LOSSESS, CLAIMS, COSTS, LIABILITY, INJURIES OR DAMAGES. FUTHER I AGREE NOT TO CLAIM THE UNENFORCEABILITY OF THIS AGREEMENT OR THIS RELEASE. I AGREE THAT THE FOREGOING OBLIGATION SHALL BE BINDING UPON ME PERSONALLY, AS WELL AS UPON MY HEIRS, ASSIGNS, EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, AND MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY, AND SHALL ALSO BE BINDING UPON ANY MINORS ACCOMPANYING ME ON THIS TRIP.

You are a retired lawyer and I respect your opinion on this but I have to ask.

Would you sign a contract with that wording?

Cheers
Jim

Did Cal ask the agent to delete, change or modify the language?

Look if the thread was to start a generic discussion about booking contracts and what is and is not appropriate in such contracts it would have been simple enough to do so without making this something focused on an individual agent. A general discussion of booking contracts would have been more appropriate in my mind.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Did Cal ask the agent to change or modify the language?

I don't know, you will have to ask Cal. Nice diversion though.

Would you sign a contract with the wording posted? Simple question.

Cheers
Jim

I do not and would not sign Buzz's contract without modifying it.

As Drummond mentioned earlier, Cal also mentioned that if he brought forth the contract for discussion on AR, he (the booking agent) would not book him.

Now I can't answer for anyone else, but if a booking agent who utilizes a free forum for his own personal gain says "I won't book you if you ask for opinions and discussion on the 10-12 page contract I use for my protection" to other
members of the same forum, that raises a big
red flag.

In addition, despite being asked many times to explain the contract and help us understand it, he refuses to answer any questions and continues to post new hunts.

I guess he is hoping this goes away quietly like other questionable booking agents and outfitters who have utilized AR for their own gain with less than candid offerings and follow up.

A public forum with public offerings deserves a public answer.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I do not and would not sign Buzz's contract without modifying it.

I don't think Buzz's contract is posted here.

Would you want the portion of the contract posted here modified before you would sign it?

. . . I've actually answered your question . . . twice.