Client Rents Rifle, Client Damages Rifle or Scope, Who Should Be Responsible for Repair?

[coyote wacker]

Has nothing to do with using a persons gun but to show how people are ! Not many but there is a few !

I live on Lk.St Clair several years ago we had high water very high. So the Township supplied free sand and sandbags for your use. I learned a lot about people that I had forgotten over the years good and bad.
Back in the early 70's I built sandbag filler tubes the last time we had high water, so I built some to use in the Spring of 2020. You put a bag on the bottom of the tube there was 4 in a row. With two people you could could fill bags very fast. I was on the local News and in newspapers, news spread and they were being used up and down the coast with in days of the new releases.
Well there were local contractors even business's that donated to me 6" PVC, 2x4's and screws, I build around 100 of them for people to use at the Township sand piles we had 4 locations. Well suprizingly people stoled many of the sand fillers tubes. Even caught several people that drove 30 miles to steal several of the sand bag filler tubes. I couldn't figure out why someone would take something not theres, but to take something that wasen't theres made to help anyone that needed it if it was left at the sand pile.
I thought of it as one of the most selfish self centered things a person could do to the fellow human beings.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Cars, houses, vs a rifle, lawn mower, farm implement, is comparing apples to oranges.

Cars, houses, apartment, etc these things the renter and owner has the option to purchase insurance to cover their respective personal losses.

Borrowing or renting a rifle, the neighbors mower, and like items there is no option to purchase insurance against loss or damage.

I personally make sure if a person asks to borrow or use something from me I expect them to return it to me and not loan it to someone else without my okay. Regardless they either return the item in the same condition they received it, otherwise they get it properly repaired or replace it.

In reference to the OP regarding borrowing/ renting a rifle: Fair wear and tear means expect nicks, and scratches, from normal use and the borrower trying to limit such nicks and scratches.

A sling stud causes the borrower to lose control/ possession of the rifle; the rifle hits the dirt, rocks, etc, that's on the rifle owner. However, the borrower/ renter should also be mindful that the sling stud is/ has worked loose and make the rifle owner aware or the problem so the owner can/ has the opportunity to repair it.

The borrower/ renter is just plain clumsy, falls, and breaks the scope, stock, etc. that's on the borrower/ renter, and not normal wear and tear. The borrower should pay for the damage(s).

Anyone that can't treat a loaner rifle better than their own, should just accept the inconvenience and bring their own rifle.

The loaner may not be a Rigby, H&H, etc. But to a reputable outfitter, PH, their loaner rifle means just as much to them.

How is it that you still can't understand the difference between borrowing and renting? The concept is just not all that difficult. In a business transaction, how the lessor feels about the item is irrelevant. If you ever rent anything, be sure you get the responsibilities in writing. If you borrow something, as opposed to renting, common decency would dictate that you return it in at least as good a condition as you got it. Rent on the other hand is strictly a business transaction.

 

[Ridge Runner]

How is it that you still can't understand the difference between borrowing and renting? The concept is just not all that difficult. In a business transaction, how the lessor feels about the item is irrelevant. If you ever rent anything, be sure you get the responsibilities in writing. If you borrow something, as opposed to renting, common decency would dictate that you return it in at least as good a condition as you got it. Rent on the other hand is strictly a business transaction.

Obviously we have two different views points.

Your saying because someone is renting an item, regardless:

● whether or not the rental fee is far below the repair or replacement costs,

● whether or not the item is equalvelent or greater in cost to what the renter would have brought,

● unless the responsibilities are in writing,

it's ok for the renter to abuse the item because it's a business transaction.

Regardless of how the lessor feels about the renter abusing the item.

Don't ask me to rent you anything.

At least we have the same view point on borrowing an item.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Obviously we have two different views points.

Your saying because someone is renting an item, regardless:

● whether or not the rental fee is far below the repair or replacement costs,

● whether or not the item is equalvelent or greater in cost to what the renter would have brought,

● unless the responsibilities are in writing,

it's ok for the renter to abuse the item because it's a business transaction.

Regardless of how the lessor feels about the renter abusing the item.

Don't ask me to rent you anything.

At least we have the same view point on borrowing an item.

When someone rents out an item of property he accepts a certain risk that the item may.be damaged. If he has the reasonable expectations listed the degree of responsibility can shift somewhat. If the owner thinks that the renter is abusing the property he can terminate the agreement and stop the use of the item. Intentional abuse of the item should be covered in a rental agreement. A slip and fall is a risk of hunting and should be covered by the outfitter as "normal wear and tear" unless specified differently in the rental agreement.

Of course the rental fee is much less than the replacement cost. The owner expects to rent the item many times before the item is used up. That is the risk you take when you rent equipment.

 

[Rimbaud]

I think hunting is one of the last areas in society that is characterized by gentlemanly behavior. If I damage a rented rifle, or optic, I will pay for the damage. One could argue that the renter of the rifle assumes the risk of the transaction, and perhaps case law in whatever country the damage occurs might even substantiate who does or does not pay damages, but that has little impact on my thinking. While I recognize that some of the outfitters are financially comfortable, and some are even wealthy, that is of little influence on my thinking. I feel gratitude toward the PHs and hunting guides as they make it possible for me to do what I love. I appreciate their dedication and time spent doing what is needed to look after the animals and land. So if I damage their property, I will offer to pay. Just one guy's view. I think one must do what one thinks is right. If you let that guide your actions, you cannot do wrong.

 

[Flbt]

When you rent a car
You buy insurance
Your personal insurance pay for damage
Or you pay for damages.

Any insurance company wants to start a line for rented hunting rifles?

 

[Doug Hamilton]

I think hunting is one of the last areas in society that is characterized by gentlemanly behavior. If I damage a rented rifle, or optic, I will pay for the damage. One could argue that the renter of the rifle assumes the risk of the transaction, and perhaps case law in whatever country the damage occurs might even substantiate who does or does not pay damages, but that has little impact on my thinking. While I recognize that some of the outfitters are financially comfortable, and some are even wealthy, that is of little influence on my thinking. I feel gratitude toward the PHs and hunting guides as they make it possible for me to do what I love. I appreciate their dedication and time spent doing what is needed to look after the animals and land. So if I damage their property, I will offer to pay. Just one guy's view. I think one must do what one thinks is right. If you let that guide your actions, you cannot do wrong.

As you said, "... one must do what one thinks is right." No one can argue that.

 

[Rimbaud]

As you said, "... one must do what one thinks is right." No one can argue that.

I was raised in the South. I was taught that Gen. Lee epitomized what it meant to be a gentleman. When I was in college, I was in a fraternity that was inspired by the General. I have always thought the following was a North Star:
“The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman.

The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly–the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light

The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled when he cannot help humbling others.”

 

[Doug Hamilton]

I was raised in the South. I was taught that Gen. Lee epitomized what it meant to be a gentleman. When I was in college, I was in a fraternity that was inspired by the General. I have always thought the following was a North Star:
“The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman.

The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly–the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light

The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled when he cannot help humbling others.”

Seems like a strange quote for someone that advocated and fought for slavery. Or did I misjudge the view of the Southern soldier? That is entirely possible as I know virtually nothing about Lee's thoughts. College, and American History was about 50 years ago.

 

[Rimbaud]

Seems like a strange quote for someone that advocated and fought for slavery. Or did I misjudge the view of the Southern soldier? That is entirely possible as I know virtually nothing about Lee's thoughts. College, and American History was about 50 years ago.

Agreed. V paradoxical. To my way of thinking, and this is a narrow construct, his statements are applied to one’s personal conduct as a man’s conduct. Beyond that construct, he clearly made some bad decisions.

 

[Rez Exelon]

Regardless of how the lessor feels about the renter abusing the item.

You seem to have gone back to this idea of someone abusing an item like it's on purpose a couple of times. I don't recall anyone in this thread advocating that intentional abuse is ever acceptable. On the other hand there's been quite a few valid examples of UNintentional "abuse" that have been brought up in this thread that can and have happened in the real world.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Four times in Africa I have used outfitter rifles. Twice to shoot buffalo, once to take my last plains animal when my new scope crapped, and once at the start of a safari when a hasty bedding job after rebarreling my Springfield failed. Honestly, I'm not sure I was charged a rental fee any of the times. But my outfitter knew from the get go I was a standup guy and ditto for me so no need to fuss about terms before I was handed the gun. He lent me a rifle in a pinch. I took care of it and shot my own ammo. Thank you. You're welcome.

On my first safari we were presented with a situation where a valuable breeding bull buffalo got nasty after I took an old cow from the herd. I asked my PH later what would happen if it came down to killing the expensive SOB or be killed. He said that would be an "interesting situation." Apparently that eventuality was not sorted out beforehand. The farm manager was along so I guess he could authorize a shooting ... or pull a horn from his guts. But the black farm manager was not the rich white farm owner who paid mega bucks for that bull. I'm sure it would have been "interesting." Glad it didn't come to that ... but it was close! If I shot it and wanted the trophy (he was a fantastic bull but I didn't want a bull with a tag in its ear), I guess I would be obligated to pay at least the trophy fee. Anyone had any experience with how self-defence shootings are handled?

 

[CBH Australia]

When you rent a car
You buy insurance
Your personal insurance pay for damage
Or you pay for damages.

Any insurance company wants to start a line for rented hunting rifles?

I reckon it would be a profitable policy if you offered insurance cover on rented rifles in the sense we are talking these client rifles used under supervision.

We try not to drop them and don’t knock them around. Fair wear and tear might be the slightest of rub marks or fine scratches from brush.

Granted there might be some claimable damage after unfortunate event but hopefully rare and an excess would likely be incurred if a claim was lodged.

Clients probably receive more scratches than rifles on safari.

 

[Rimbaud]

Seems like a strange quote for someone that advocated and fought for slavery. Or did I misjudge the view of the Southern soldier? That is entirely possible as I know virtually nothing about Lee's thoughts. College, and American History was about 50 years ago.

Agreed. He was paradoxical. If you are interested in reading more, recommend Douglas Southall Freeman's four-volume biography, RE Lee, and a three-volume study of his war fighting and command styles, Lee's Lieutenants. Ironically, I bought the books some years ago from the Abraham Lincoln Bookshop in Chicago, which is one of the best history bookshops in America.

 

[Ridge Runner]

When someone rents out an item of property he accepts a certain risk that the item may.be damaged.

Regardless whether a person rents or loans someone an item; Aren't the risks of damage the same?

If he has the reasonable expectations listed the degree of responsibility can shift somewhat. If the owner thinks that the renter is abusing the property he can terminate the agreement and stop the use of the item. Intentional abuse of the item should be covered in a rental agreement. A slip and fall is a risk of hunting and should be covered by the outfitter as "normal wear and tear" unless specified differently in the rental agreement.

Of course the rental fee is much less than the replacement cost. The owner expects to rent the item many times before the item is used up.
That is the risk you take when you rent equipment.

Let's put this in perspective:

You do not reside in the US nor have the luxuries afforded to those living in the US.

Your income allows you a reasonably comfortable lifestyle while saving for your eventual retirement that any unforeseen injury/emergency could easily wipe out.

Your country of residence limits the number of firearms and amount of ammunition you can possess.

[As of yet...or at least to my knowledge....I have yet to hear of any outfitter or PH ask a client to sign a rental agreement....{LMAO....ask if the client wants additional rifle rental insurance...} But you could be the first to start such a trend.]

You are the PH. You only have 1 (or perhaps 2) scoped rifle(s) you are able to provide a client(s). Rather than simply loaning clients your rifle, you "pad" your income by renting your rifle to clients. To justify charging the rental fee you call it a "fair wear and tear fee".

Thus serviceable or not you are saying you are satisfied that the client returned your broken scope rifle, needed for the next client, is acceptable fair wear and tear, and because the $25, $50, per day rental fee will satisfy your need to purchase a new $600.00+ mediocre scope?


Perhaps just me being raised "old school" and taught "gentleman's agreement".

"Fair wear and tear" means I expect the rifle to be returned as provided, allowing for it to be dirty from use and environment, having a few extra nicks, pings, dings, scratches, and finish a bit more marred.

Barring "mechanical failures", fair wear and tear doesn't mean the rifle is returned broken, or otherwise unserviceable. However, "Sh't Happens" ie slipping, falling and breaking the scope. You break it, You buy it.....or at the very least offer to assist with offsetting costs of repair(s) or replacement.

 

[B0MBOY]

I’ve never rented a rifle. But in the field my own guns get seriously scratched, dented, dropped, and fallen on. That’s why i buy quality so my gear keeps working after it happens

I wouldn’t expect anything different from a rental

 

[kpoynter]

I feel somewhat contrarian on this, but I feel like two things are true here
1) I feel like a rifle being dropped or hit while falling perhaps are very real possibilities and should be contemplated when renting a camp rifle. I mean if you hunt enough and walk miles and miles ducking, weaving, walking on rocky ground, uneven terrain, hills, gulleys….crawling…. Whatever… yeah this is a very real possibility
2) what kind of damage? Cosmetic most likely? I’ve dinged up my main Africa bolt action and took a heck of a fall one time… good gear would function just fine. I did ding my scope bad in South Africa once….works just fine.

Truthfully…we don’t know all the details but I kind of feel like a cosmetic ding would be part and parcel

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Regardless whether a person rents or loans someone an item; Aren't the risks of damage the same?



Let's put this in perspective:

You do not reside in the US nor have the luxuries afforded to those living in the US.

Your income allows you a reasonably comfortable lifestyle while saving for your eventual retirement that any unforeseen injury/emergency could easily wipe out.

Your country of residence limits the number of firearms and amount of ammunition you can possess.

[As of yet...or at least to my knowledge....I have yet to hear of any outfitter or PH ask a client to sign a rental agreement....{LMAO....ask if the client wants additional rifle rental insurance...} But you could be the first to start such a trend.]

You are the PH. You only have 1 (or perhaps 2) scoped rifle(s) you are able to provide a client(s). Rather than simply loaning clients your rifle, you "pad" your income by renting your rifle to clients. To justify charging the rental fee you call it a "fair wear and tear fee".

Thus serviceable or not you are saying you are satisfied that the client returned your broken scope rifle, needed for the next client, is acceptable fair wear and tear, and because the $25, $50, per day rental fee will satisfy your need to purchase a new $600.00+ mediocre scope?


Perhaps just me being raised "old school" and taught "gentleman's agreement".

"Fair wear and tear" means I expect the rifle to be returned as provided, allowing for it to be dirty from use and environment, having a few extra nicks, pings, dings, scratches, and finish a bit more marred.

Barring "mechanical failures", fair wear and tear doesn't mean the rifle is returned broken, or otherwise unserviceable. However, "Sh't Happens" ie slipping, falling and breaking the scope. You break it, You buy it.....or at the very least offer to assist with offsetting costs of repair(s) or replacement.

Kind of stubborn aren't you? I very much doubt if you were raised any more "old school" than I was. The difference is that after spending twenty plus years in business and another twenty - two years working with felons in the prison system, I have the life experience that makes me very careful about who owes who what. I have never rented a firearm, so maybe if I did I might see it a little differently, but I most likely would not pay for a new scope to replace the used one that would undoubtedly be repaired or replaced for free by the manufacturer. Regardless of your skewed sense of ethics, that just does not make good sense.

 

[Quest#1]

Interesting thread. I guess I'm mixed on this i don’t borrow if i need something i buy it. Not rich just the way i am…

But i was on a hunt with a guy in camp rented a camp rifle. By the end of the hunt he could have just bought that rifle. So i guess if you have a $1000 rifle that you have turned around and rented out for $10k over the years then move on.
It’s business…. Now throwing or miss treatment that’s different.

That said i did just demo a $27k kolar shotgun while at a shoot no charge and no written rule but if i would have dropped it. I would have bought it.
So yeah i didn't drop it or get into any situation that anything could happen to it.

 

[Flbt]

Just a question.
Does who ever that rents a rifle.
Do they vet the person out first?

Is there a bubba sporter 7x57 with a Simmons 8 pt scope on it.

Then a factory rifle with a leupold on it. If the guy looks like he knows what he is doing?.