The hunting industry is quite unique, in that we are offering the hunter a chance, not a product. A specific number of dates in which we will feed and house him and try to put XYZ animals in front of him in a position where he can HOPEFULLY make a successful shot.

People sue these days for really stupid stuff. A contract is necessary for the hunter so he knows exactly what his responsibility is for payment, what the outfitter is expected to supply, and what all the costs associated with the hunt are. That's it.

The agent needs the Hunter to know that storms, wild animals, gopher holes and flat tires and trophy shipping delays are not his fault.

According to a few in the industry who posted here, this can all be accomplished in 2 pages. My attorney confirms that. So, I use my two page contract and everyone knows what to expect. Aaron and other guys also use similar contracts.

No, I won't post mine for other agents to poach. I paid an attorney to write it. Get your own attorney.

The portion that my attorney wrote takes up about 1/3 of the page. That's it. The rest of the first page is rates and fees and inclusions exclusions. Page two is a standard liability release. You would be a fool to not use one in this day and age.

The agent doesn't have to come here to defend his contract. We have a free market system here enhanced by the huge amount of info available to us here on AR. I'm sure this thread will be just another tidbit of info that people use to make their decision on where to hunt and how to organize it.

Wendell:

Didn't someone accuse you of being responsible for trophy shipping or something like that some years ago?

I get your point totally.

Yep. It was quite ridiculous.

Which just illustrates the point that if clients find lengthy contracts that include releases, limitations, acknowledgements and other provisions in them offensive, they do not need to look any further than themselves (generally) to blame. Those provisions did not come about by accident . . . they were the product of clients seeking to extract something from an agent or an outfitter because there was no explicit contract provision to address the issue and to prevent their claim. So the contracts look the way they do because of litigious clients and then clients complain about how the contracts look . . . ironic.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Which just illustrates the point that if clients find lengthy contracts that include releases, limitations, acknowledgements and other provisions in them offensive, they do not need to look any further than themselves (generally) to blame. Those provisions did not come about by accident . . . they were the product of clients seeking to extract something from an agent or an outfitter because there was no explicit contract provision to address the issue and to prevent their claim. So the contracts look the way they do because of litigious clients and then clients complain about how the contracts look . . . ironic.

Oh, and you can't discuss this on AR or I won't book you.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Which just illustrates the point that if clients find lengthy contracts that include releases, limitations, acknowledgements and other provisions in them offensive, they do not need to look any further than themselves (generally) to blame. Those provisions did not come about by accident . . . they were the product of clients seeking to extract something from an agent or an outfitter because there was no explicit contract provision to address the issue and to prevent their claim. So the contracts look the way they do because of litigious clients and then clients complain about how the contracts look . . . ironic.

Yes this is true enough, but also to blame are the slivering plaintiff atty's who take frivolous cases in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Which just illustrates the point that if clients find lengthy contracts that include releases, limitations, acknowledgements and other provisions in them offensive, they do not need to look any further than themselves (generally) to blame. Those provisions did not come about by accident . . . they were the product of clients seeking to extract something from an agent or an outfitter because there was no explicit contract provision to address the issue and to prevent their claim. So the contracts look the way they do because of litigious clients and then clients complain about how the contracts look . . . ironic.

Yes this is true enough, but also to blame are the slivering plaintiff atty's who take frivolous cases in the first place.

Good point. It does take two, does it not, Mike?

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Which just illustrates the point that if clients find lengthy contracts that include releases, limitations, acknowledgements and other provisions in them offensive, they do not need to look any further than themselves (generally) to blame. Those provisions did not come about by accident . . . they were the product of clients seeking to extract something from an agent or an outfitter because there was no explicit contract provision to address the issue and to prevent their claim. So the contracts look the way they do because of litigious clients and then clients complain about how the contracts look . . . ironic.

Yes this is true enough, but also to blame are the slivering plaintiff atty's who take frivolous cases in the first place.

. . . the plaintiff's lawyers wouldn't have the work if the clients did not bring them the cases in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Which just illustrates the point that if clients find lengthy contracts that include releases, limitations, acknowledgements and other provisions in them offensive, they do not need to look any further than themselves (generally) to blame. Those provisions did not come about by accident . . . they were the product of clients seeking to extract something from an agent or an outfitter because there was no explicit contract provision to address the issue and to prevent their claim. So the contracts look the way they do because of litigious clients and then clients complain about how the contracts look . . . ironic.

Yes this is true enough, but also to blame are the slivering plaintiff atty's who take frivolous cases in the first place.

. . . the plaintiff's lawyers wouldn't have the work if the clients did not bring them the cases in the first place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Qk6QPzuIc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL3MxAH-kDI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzNSY2YYaQo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II2rCs0VUEE

Yup, it's those people seeking out lawyers that are the only part of this problem.

Interestingly, today, I got a contract for a hunt in Tajikistan from another well known agent who frequents AR. The contract was 1 page. Not that the length makes the contract good or bad. I never thought the length of the contract this thread is about was a problem anyway.

I copied the following excerpt from the e mail. I thought this was interesting.

"Please read the terms and conditions before signing. If there's something you do not agree with or have a question on, please let me know and we'll work something out. The release form basically just states "you know adventure travel is dangerous, right?", but read it and let me know if you have any questions. Strikethrough anything you do not agree with (if any) and initial before sending it back. I've put a special amendment in this that states if the trophy fee for Marco Polo goes up by over 50% you're free to cancel the hunt as long as it's done prior to January 15, 2018."

I have to respect that.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Which just illustrates the point that if clients find lengthy contracts that include releases, limitations, acknowledgements and other provisions in them offensive, they do not need to look any further than themselves (generally) to blame. Those provisions did not come about by accident . . . they were the product of clients seeking to extract something from an agent or an outfitter because there was no explicit contract provision to address the issue and to prevent their claim. So the contracts look the way they do because of litigious clients and then clients complain about how the contracts look . . . ironic.

Would that have any relation to a dentist who attempted to take a legal lion, as far as he knew, and was pilloried for it in here by certain people long before all the facts were out?

quote:

"Please read the terms and conditions before signing. If there's something you do not agree with or have a question on, please let me know and we'll work something out. The release form basically just states "you know adventure travel is dangerous, right?", but read it and let me know if you have any questions. Strikethrough anything you do not agree with (if any) and initial before sending it back. I've put a special amendment in this that states if the trophy fee for Marco Polo goes up by over 50% you're free to cancel the hunt as long as it's done prior to January 15, 2018."

Now that sounds like a guy who knows how to do business and keep his word. I'd use him and not the other, for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Which just illustrates the point that if clients find lengthy contracts that include releases, limitations, acknowledgements and other provisions in them offensive, they do not need to look any further than themselves (generally) to blame. Those provisions did not come about by accident . . . they were the product of clients seeking to extract something from an agent or an outfitter because there was no explicit contract provision to address the issue and to prevent their claim. So the contracts look the way they do because of litigious clients and then clients complain about how the contracts look . . . ironic.

Would that have any relation to a dentist who attempted to take a legal lion, as far as he knew, and was pilloried for it in here by certain people long before all the facts were out?

None whatsoever. Palmer is and was a crook . . . has the convictions to prove it. Some of you need to do a better job of picking heroes and people to defend. Be sure to send him a thank you note for the lion ban and continuation of the elephant trophy ban.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Be sure to send him a thank you note for the lion ban and continuation of the elephant trophy ban.

And the gun caused the mass shooting too.

Mike, you are going to get dizzy spinning like that.

BTW, I thought Americans can import two Elephants a year as long as enhancement needs are met.

quote:

None whatsoever. Palmer is and was a crook . . . has the convictions to prove it. Some of you need to do a better job of picking heroes and people to defend. Be sure to send him a thank you note for the lion ban and continuation of the elephant trophy ban.

Mike:
I don't know much about Palmer and his life before he shot the lion. What was he guilty of?
Cal

Cal:

As I recall, he shot a bear in an area for which he had no permit then lied about it.

There may have been another violation. I am not certain. A fishing violation is in my mind but i am not certain.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Which just illustrates the point that if clients find lengthy contracts that include releases, limitations, acknowledgements and other provisions in them offensive, they do not need to look any further than themselves (generally) to blame. Those provisions did not come about by accident . . . they were the product of clients seeking to extract something from an agent or an outfitter because there was no explicit contract provision to address the issue and to prevent their claim. So the contracts look the way they do because of litigious clients and then clients complain about how the contracts look . . . ironic.

I seriously doubt the hunting contracts got one sided because of litigious clients. They became one sided cause the outfitters and agents could get away with it. Clients (especially for African hunting) are sold some discretionary vacation wrapped in a marketing story of the great white hunter. I have not meet a single person on AR or at DSC whose hunting, outdoor and shooting skills were so great they were actually needed in Africa - the only thing we really bring to the table is a checkbook. Along with a discretionary vacation comes a discretionary mindset - a lot of clients are willing to sign hunting contracts they would never really sign in their business or ordinary day to day economic activity.

For Africa the one sided waiver of all liabilities by outfitter that is standard is moot. Who will sue someone in a zim court? But I would never sign a waiver in the US, Canada, Europe or Australia - any place with a functioning legal system. Why be subject to all liabilities when the professional assumes none?

For Africa I will not sign a blanket waiver on a hunting contract. That limits my hunting to hunting with Leon Duplessis at Save Safaris or Jason Bridger at Tholo. That is fine with me. In the US I am fine hunting without a contract cause I will default to tort liabilities on both parties and hunts are low dollar price (no sheep or bear hunting) so I don't mind getting screwed on the deposits. Just following outfitters and hunt reports on AR gives me a good idea of who will not screw me on my deposit. I would not waste my time going thru a 10-20 pages legal document or send it to one of my more competent law school buddies to review.

But as a general rule I don't trust anyone giving me a one sided contract - it gives me a window into their business and general outlook. I also don't trust anyone who is always very lawyered up. A lot of ethical business guys like Warren Buffett do massive complex deals on very simple contracts.


https://theblogbyjavier.com/20...-berkshire-hathaway/

Mike

Beretta682E
VERY well said.
You summed up my complaint with the contract in question here: "Why be subject to all liabilities when the professional assumes none?"
Cal

Risk follows reward . . . why should the agent you are not paying anything assume any material risk?

one thing I have learned in my long and misspent life is if someone says "trust me", I put my hand on my wallet and run like hell.

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Which just illustrates the point that if clients find lengthy contracts that include releases, limitations, acknowledgements and other provisions in them offensive, they do not need to look any further than themselves (generally) to blame. Those provisions did not come about by accident . . . they were the product of clients seeking to extract something from an agent or an outfitter because there was no explicit contract provision to address the issue and to prevent their claim. So the contracts look the way they do because of litigious clients and then clients complain about how the contracts look . . . ironic.

Yes this is true enough, but also to blame are the slivering plaintiff atty's who take frivolous cases in the first place.

. . . the plaintiff's lawyers wouldn't have the work if the clients did not bring them the cases in the first place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Qk6QPzuIc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL3MxAH-kDI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzNSY2YYaQo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II2rCs0VUEE

Yup, it's those people seeking out lawyers that are the only part of this problem.

Brian Wilson, the Texas Law Hawk, has a truly epic commercial! Anybody that has American flags, eagles screaming, mopeds and midgets in the same commercial is A-ok in my book

Due process? Do wheelies! Lmao

<div itemprop="video" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/VideoObject"></div>


<div itemprop="video" itemscope="itemscope" itemtype="http://schema.org/VideoObject"></div>

quote:

Originally posted by tygersman:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:


When I got up at 4:30 this morning for my four mile run it was 94 degrees; i could not believe it. Now in Monroe, LA and must say it feels quite comfortable.

`

Holy crap. Monroe, LA, huh? Hope you're on your way to a better place for vacation ....

Not on vacation; work.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Risk follows reward . . . why should the agent you are not paying anything assume any material risk?

The better question to ask is why would a professional outfitter you are paying require you to assume away all liability on their part?

What is the professional nature of ones occupation where ones hold himself out as a professional but assume no consequences for any actions including gross negligence and wrongful acts?

What other professional occupation requires ones to assume away all liability as standard operating default language in contracts?

Also since this is a US based hunt and I assume the outfitter is licensed as a guide in some state jurisdiction and I don't think he can get away from all liabilities thru this contract. Very tough to be a licensed professional and then use a contract to claim release due to complete professional incompetence.

If I was offered this contract I would assume I am going to get screwed by someone in this financial transaction cause I am being asked upfront that hopefully you don't mind getting screwed even though by state professional regulation we are not supposed to screw you.

Being offered this contract does not reflect well on the booking agent offering it - why there is total radio silence from the booking agent.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Interestingly, today, I got a contract for a hunt in Tajikistan from another well known agent who frequents AR. The contract was 1 page. Not that the length makes the contract good or bad. I never thought the length of the contract this thread is about was a problem anyway.

I copied the following excerpt from the e mail. I thought this was interesting.

"Please read the terms and conditions before signing. If there's something you do not agree with or have a question on, please let me know and we'll work something out. The release form basically just states "you know adventure travel is dangerous, right?", but read it and let me know if you have any questions. Strikethrough anything you do not agree with (if any) and initial before sending it back. I've put a special amendment in this that states if the trophy fee for Marco Polo goes up by over 50% you're free to cancel the hunt as long as it's done prior to January 15, 2018."

I have to respect that.

This sounds like a common sense agreement, and diametrically opposite to what Cal says he got, especially the part that says "I won't book you if you mention this on AR"

What a bloody crook!

From what I understand he posts hunts here and benefits from our members, but does not wish to explain his one sided agreement??

I won't touch that agent with a barge pole!

quote:

This sounds like a common sense agreement, and diametrically opposite to what Cal says he got, especially the part that says "I won't book you if you mention this on AR"

What a bloody crook!

From what I understand he posts hunts here and benefits from our members, but does not wish to explain his one sided agreement??

I won't touch that agent with a barge pole!

Saeed:
A day to be marked in history. You and I agree!
Cheers, mate.
Cal
PS. Saeed, if you would like to see the entire contract, PM me and I will forward it to you.

Does not an indemnity agreement sign away your rights to claim for damages? Even though your newly qualified 18 year old no name alcoholic PH is undertaking his first dangerous game safari and neglects to inform you he suffers from frequent bouts of narcolepsy. Unbeknown to you he has been denied a driving license and is currently being questioned by the FBI.

To be honest Cal we are talking about a little elk hunt here and whether you sign away your rights for the duration of a few days you are after all a big man with many years experience with a large gun in hand.

To further protect yourself you have entertained the services of a reputable agent which I gather was your choice? In response he has prepared a very concise contract albeit 11 pages. He may have his reasons for this but is not obliged to make his conditions or contract public.

I do however agree that if a contract is to be entertained then your money has to be safe guarded as a consumer and that the hunt is conditions and expectations are similar to that of the advertisement.

I do not have a contract as such but rather an agreement that outlines correspondence, hunt expectations and pricing. It is paper thin.

Trust me.

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:

quote:

This sounds like a common sense agreement, and diametrically opposite to what Cal says he got, especially the part that says "I won't book you if you mention this on AR"

What a bloody crook!

From what I understand he posts hunts here and benefits from our members, but does not wish to explain his one sided agreement??

I won't touch that agent with a barge pole!

Saeed:
A day to be marked in history. You and I agree!
Cheers, mate.
Cal
PS. Saeed, if you would like to see the entire contract, PM me and I will forward it to you.

I would love to see it Cal.

Please forward it in a PM to me.

Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
Does not an indemnity agreement sign away your rights to claim for damages? Even though your newly qualified 18 year old no name alcoholic PH is undertaking his first dangerous game safari and neglects to inform you he suffers from frequent bouts of narcolepsy. Unbeknown to you he has been denied a driving license and is currently being questioned by the FBI.

To be honest Cal we are talking about a little elk hunt here and whether you sign away your rights for the duration of a few days you are after all a big man with many years experience with a large gun in hand.

To further protect yourself you have entertained the services of a reputable agent which I gather was your choice? In response he has prepared a very concise contract albeit 11 pages. He may have his reasons for this but is not obliged to make his conditions or contract public.

I do however agree that if a contract is to be entertained then your money has to be safe guarded as a consumer and that the hunt is conditions and expectations are similar to that of the advertisement.

I do not have a contract as such but rather an agreement that outlines correspondence, hunt expectations and pricing. It is paper thin.

Trust me.

Thanks for your post. The agent contacted me. I, then, agreed to the hunt he offered and passed when I saw the complexity of the contract that included me signing away everything in favor of him. Yes, it's a small hunt (compared to some African adventures), but it's small on both sides. The commission paid is very insignificant.
Cheers,
Cal

It could be far more concise than 11 pages.....in fact, one or two lines would suffice:

I hereby sign away any and all right(s) I may have to seek recourse for any reason whatsoever if I go on this hunt. You, the agent, are responsible for absolutely nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Norton:
It could be far more concise than 11 pages.....in fact, one or two lines would suffice:

I hereby sign away any and all right(s) I may have to seek recourse for any reason whatsoever if I go on this hunt. You, the agent, are responsible for absolutely nothing.

I hear you but when you are probably overseeing a couple of hundred hunters a year I doubt you have time to wade through shit.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

I hear you but when you are probably overseeing a couple of hundred hunters a year I doubt you have time to wade through shit.

Then his business plan is flawed and he outgrew his abilities. Part of an agents job is to "wade through shit" is it not? I seem to recall that the hunt you and I shared almost didn't happen because of a piece of paper that certainly qualified as "wading through shit".

Cheers
Jim

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

I hear you but when you are probably overseeing a couple of hundred hunters a year I doubt you have time to wade through shit.

Isn't that what an agent's for? To make sure nothing goes wrong? If not, why the **** do you need one?

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by Norton:
It could be far more concise than 11 pages.....in fact, one or two lines would suffice:

I hereby sign away any and all right(s) I may have to seek recourse for any reason whatsoever if I go on this hunt. You, the agent, are responsible for absolutely nothing.

I hear you but when you are probably overseeing a couple of hundred hunters a year I doubt you have time to wade through shit.

if I'm paying a 3rd party to help me book a hunt I am precisely paying them to wade through the shit for me!

also to those that say this is a "little hunt" as someone else pointed out maybe compared to africa, but for my personal budget it would be a chunk so I would really be leaning hard on the agent to take care of me since i'm paying good money and haven't done an adventure of this nature.

IF the agent is too busy to deal with a $5,000 hunt then the agent needs to not carry that hunt as the commission isn't worth his time then he should do the right thing and focus on the ones that are "worth his time" and when contacted by Cal say "hey, I don't book elk hunts but here is an outfitter that I used to deal with" and leave it up to cal to make the decisions

Just an observation.

1. You contact a booking agent inquiring about a hunt or group of hunts. You "Know" of this booking agent thru seeing his offers on an internet website.

2. This website has a "Reputation" for crucifying people, sometimes without a lot of ACTUAL knowledge about the agent.

3. The agent knowing the "Reputation" of the site, states that if the potential client presents their concerns in front of the sites "Kangaroo Court", he will not do business with the potential client. That is a Red Flag.

4. The potential client, presenting all his evidence before the "Court of Inter Net Expertise and Justice", has already basically told the agent to go to hell.

5. The "CoINE&J" demands the name of this agent, even to the point of making accusatory guesses.

End result is that an agent, guilty as charged by some or not, is only going to trust offering hunts on the site even less. The hunter, for whatever reason, instead of just telling the agent that he would consider his hunts, throwing the contract in the trash and checking with other agents, throws it on the Mercy(?????) of the site.

It seems that there might have been a better way of handling this.

quote:

Originally posted by Tim629:

IF the agent is too busy to deal with a $5,000 hunt then the agent needs to not carry that hunt as the commission isn't worth his time then he should do the right thing and focus on the ones that are "worth his time" and when contacted by Cal say "hey, I don't book elk hunts but here is an outfitter that I used to deal with" and leave it up to cal to make the decisions

Cal did not contact the agent. The agent contacted Cal.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

It seems that there might have been a better way of handling this.

Precisely.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

It seems that there might have been a better way of handling this.

Better for who?

I think many people have gained knowledge from this thread and I think it was handled well.

I know I don't have to look at this guy's offerings anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
I think many people have gained knowledge from this thread and I think it was handled well.

I know I don't have to look at this guy's offerings anymore.

+1

The more I learn about the professional hunting industry the less I like it.

Mike