BC Outfitter Stole? my Deposit. Any Ideas?

[Ontario Hunter]

@Ontario Hunter - the Question was about “HUNTING Wolverine” and based on your recommendation “find a trapper being raided” you know Nothing about Hunting Wolverine….few people do, I certainly don’t, but most admit they Know Nothing…. You grew up in Montana? Saw one? Friend was a Trapper? Funny.
It would be easier to find a Wolverine in Walmart then following your advice. But now, I’m being harsh and over stating the obvious. You can spin a yarn about whatever - it adds to the diversity of the Forum

Hank, read the other responses. No different than mine. And these guys also live in the far north. You're the one that knows nothing about wolverine. Don't assume the rest of us are as ignorant.

 

[HankBuck]

Hank, read the other responses. No different than mine. And these guys also live in the far north. You're the one that knows nothing about wolverine. Don't assume the rest of us are as ignorant.

@Ontario Hunter - that’s the first post you’ve made that was accurate “I know Nothing about Wolverine Hunting”….now would You join me in some rare honesty about Your own complete lack of knowledge on Wolverine hunting ? You hide the few thing you do know under an ocean of bragging. You could make occasional contributions and have credibility, just narrow down your field of claimed expertise to 100 or so topics.

 

[HankBuck]

As a (now non-practicing) Canadian lawyer, I can tell you the law is relatively clear. An allegation of criminal conduct that is untrue is prima facie defamatory. Unless you can point to an exception, a person making such an allegation, if untrue, would be liable for damages - and in many cases, especially when the reputation of a business is involved, damages will be assumed (without having to be actually proved). Proving damages can bump the quantum up substantially of course.

Having said that, in reading the OP’s initial post, I see no allegation of criminal conduct - those allegations came later, from other posters.

I’ve been a member of this forum for many years now and it’s interesting, at least to me, that so many people are ready to assume the worst in any given situation, based on so little. As I noted, the OP didn’t allege any criminal conduct - only that he’d made a deposit and was unable to contact the outfitter after many tries. And from that we got suggestions to sue, to get the police involved, to get the outfitters’ association involved, etc! Wow!

There are, of course, those who pointed out that there was as yet no crime committed here, and the facts disclosed didn’t even rise to the foundation for a civil claim. Good for them.

@Hank2211 - is “reasonable” a word heavily applied in Canadian Law? I’m Not an attorney and No legal knowledge. I think that Canada and the United Kingdom have laws that are much more protective of its citizens from slander and unsubstantiated accusations. In the U.S. so much falls under “Free Speech” and false accusations can often be made without consequence because it is more difficult to prove “liable”. Then sometimes even when the accusation is determined to be false - difficult to prove it did any quantifiable damage. The term “reasonable” is also often used - was the persons actions “reasonable” under the circumstances etc..
You bring up an interesting point in that the laws of the Country will heavily influence what can be said and what possible consequences may result.
Lastly, regardless of what is legally possible —- what is the most likely or common legal outcome?

 

[sureshot375]

Glad it all worked out.

I’m actually going to add them to the outfitters to check out for a goat hunt!!

 

[Hank2211]

@Hank2211 - is “reasonable” a word heavily applied in Canadian Law? I’m Not an attorney and No legal knowledge. I think that Canada and the United Kingdom have laws that are much more protective of its citizens from slander and unsubstantiated accusations. In the U.S. so much falls under “Free Speech” and false accusations can often be made without consequence because it is more difficult to prove “liable”. Then sometimes even when the accusation is determined to be false - difficult to prove it did any quantifiable damage. The term “reasonable” is also often used - was the persons actions “reasonable” under the circumstances etc..
You bring up an interesting point in that the laws of the Country will heavily influence what can be said and what possible consequences may result.
Lastly, regardless of what is legally possible —- what is the most likely or common legal outcome?

“Reasonable” is a word that is commonly used in the common law (the “reasonable man test”, or “reasonable efforts” in contract law, for example).

I believe you are right that Canada and the UK are more favorable to plaintiffs in cases of defamation than the US, particularly where famous people are involved, but I’m not qualified to practice in the US (though I am in England!), so I can’t say that with any certainty.

Not sure what you mean about the most likely legal outcome - here or generally? In this case, I would say there was no defamation, at least not by the OP (and unlikely by anyone else). Generally, defamation cases aren’t very common, since they have strict procedural requirements which, if not followed, will doom your case. They’re also difficult to prosecute (civilly) without a lawyer - and this is an arcane area of the law with a small number of layers with any experience in it - and as we all know, lawyers are (very) expensive, so unless there’s a great deal of money involved, or a famous reputation, most people will move on.

All of this is subject to the health warning that I left the practice some long time ago to go into oil and gas!

 

[HankBuck]

“Reasonable” is a word that is commonly used in the common law (the “reasonable man test”, or “reasonable efforts” in contract law, for example).

I believe you are right that Canada and the UK are more favorable to plaintiffs in cases of defamation than the US, particularly where famous people are involved, but I’m not qualified to practice in the US (though I am in England!), so I can’t say that with any certainty.

Not sure what you mean about the most likely legal outcome - here or generally? In this case, I would say there was no defamation, at least not by the OP (and unlikely by anyone else). Generally, defamation cases aren’t very common, since they have strict procedural requirements which, if not followed, will doom your case. They’re also difficult to prosecute (civilly) without a lawyer - and this is an arcane area of the law with a small number of layers with any experience in it - and as we all know, lawyers are (very) expensive, so unless there’s a great deal of money involved, or a famous reputation, most people will move on.

All of this is subject to the health warning that I left the practice some long time ago to go into oil and gas!

@Hank2211: Thank you for the legal insight you shared - it’s interesting. Maybe we should all return to how disputes around “insults” were settled in the early 1800s — a DUEL with the offended party challenging the “offender” and allowing them choice-of-weapons. People seemed to be more civil then and careful about what they said to someone or about someone — there was a “consequence” for words…..although the violence was extreme and a “Might makes Right” approach is always wrong…— people conducted themselves with some verbal restraint.

 

[Philip Glass]

He already got his deposit returned with an apology ... after he emailed a link to this thread to the outfitter.

Post in thread 'BC Outfitter Stole? my Deposit. Any Ideas?' https://www.africahunting.com/threads/bc-outfitter-stole-my-deposit-any-ideas.84787/post-1279748

Pretty quick.