SOUTH AFRICA: Tootabi Hunting Safaris What Is The Wounded Policy And Billing Issues

[BRICKBURN]

The emoji progression of this thread

 

[gizmo]

The emoji progression of this thread

Thank you, I needed a laugh

 

[KWALATA SAFARIS]

O look we're going around in circles.... To be honest if I had to pick I'll go round these two!

 

[Sand Rat]

Jaco, you've just about wore those titties out.......................on second thought nah.

 

[peras]

Jaco, that pic should become your avatar!

 

[sierraone]

OK guys, if Loodt and Royal are happy, lets move on to something else, such as a new Rigby rifle or a lion hunt!!!

 

[jeff]

Those are truly Trophy Class !!!

 

[ActionBob]

O look we're going around in circles.... To be honest if I had to pick I'll go round these two!

Just when I was going to respond to Brickburn's thing and suggest we needed one more

Proof positive women really do rule the World.

Jaco, you've just about wore those titties out.......................on second thought nah.

You know why women don't have hair on their chest? Grass doesn't grow on a playground

Jaco, that pic should become your avatar!

One hell of a lot better than the other choice that was posted

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

One hell of a lot better than the other choice that was posted

No b.s. there!

I just got to thinking about the conversation at the DSC 2016 AH dinner............

 

[jeff]

I don't need a PH to tell me that's a real trophy!!!

 

[Albertaguy]

Jaco that makes me want to quit arguing! Hell it makes me forget my own name!

 

[ChasingHemingway]

After reading this thread I understand the importance of contracts, but I still hold true to if I dont feel I can trust the outfitter/PH or my handshake and word is not good enough (old fashioned but still in style) and vice versa then they are not the outfitter/PH/friend that I will hunt with. What happened to the fact we are only as good as our word and doing what was right though always not popular was a good as gold. These are what good people and business are made of - win some and lose some, but my character and integrity will never be challenged.

Old Fashioned but still in Style,

dt

 

[Areaonereal]

Cavalier as it all sounds just a handshake is good enough, how is it handled if the client states that the day rate was less than agreed to, the trophy fee were less than agreed to, what proof of writing refers to the prices that were agreed to. Most of these bookings are months in advance. Memories fail, or out and out deception by the client. I for one am not putting myself obligated to paying thousands of dollars for a hunt without all the specifics in writing. My business years dictate memories fail, mine included so thumping your chest that all your business is with a handshake I admire you. Most outfitters may overlook the fact the American hunter spends many dollars to travel, possibly deposits with nothing more than a Leap of Faith,,that all will proceed as described. I am sure that handshakes are accepted, but an agreement describing services and pricing reinforces everyone being on the same page, I would not hunt without an agreement..

 

[Hank2211]

I admire those of you who are prepared to commit thousands of dollars, perhaps tens of thousands, on a handshake. Most people wouldn't buy a car on a handshake (which might cost less than a safari), or plan a trip to Disneyworld, but I guess safaris are different.

Even two honest and well intentioned people can say the same thing and hear or remember something different. One with more experience - an outfitter perhaps - might assume knowledge of certain things that the client won't have thought of, or the client might make the assumptions. Either way, unhappiness is the certain result.

From my perspective, there are so many issues that need to be spelled out - verbally or in writing - for a safari, that to rely on a handshake is probably the best way to make lose friends, as well as make enemies and work for lawyers.

I've never had a contract (in twelve safaris to Africa), but there's always been an email trail where we set out the details, what is to be delivered, what I'm to pay, etc. I wouldn't have it any other way.

And before we blame all the problems on the lawyers, let's remember that they only get involved because someone calls them.

 

[Trap123]

I still have to wonder if these contracts are enforceable by either party once we are back home.
I would guess that enforcement from either side (with the logistics involved)in most cases would probably cost more than the disputed amount.With that being said ,for me as a hunter it is reputation,reputation,reputation.......and I suppose a small leap of faith.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I still have to wonder if these contracts are enforceable by either party once we are back home.
I would guess that enforcement from either side (with the logistics involved)in most cases would probably cost more than the disputed amount.With that being said ,for me as a hunter it is reputation,reputation,reputation.......and I suppose a small leap of faith.

Sure they are, it's called the WWW and places like AH on it. Like you said, reputation reputation reputation.

 

[Hank2211]

I still have to wonder if these contracts are enforceable by either party once we are back home.
I would guess that enforcement from either side (with the logistics involved)in most cases would probably cost more than the disputed amount.With that being said ,for me as a hunter it is reputation,reputation,reputation.......and I suppose a small leap of faith.

There are really two sides to this. Contracts entered into between outfitters and hunters are likely enforceable (so long as they don't deal with illegal activities - for example, a contract that requires illegal hunting likely wouldn't be enforceable anywhere), and they are likely enforceable in either the country of the hunter or that of the outfitter. That's not the same as saying which law would govern, if the contract is silent.

So if the contract doesn't say "This contract is governed by the laws of South Africa" or similar language (which usually, but not always, decides the matter of the governing law), and assuming the outfitter, and the hunt were in South Africa, and the hunter was from the US, a court would have to decide which jurisdiction had the closest connection to the subject matter of the contract. If I had to guess, I'd say South African law would likely be the governing law for enforcement of the contract, but it might be different if the contract was negotiated and entered into in the US, like at the SCI show. Then it might be US law that would govern.

Deciding which law will govern is only the beginning. You can still bring an action in South Africa to enforce a US law contract, or in the US to enforce a South African law contract, though you run the risk of the lawsuit being transferred to the other jurisdiction. Unless the contract has a clause giving exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of a particular country, and there's no public policy reason not to give effect to that. All clear so far?

So if the outfitter is mad at the US client and wants to sue him, he could launch a lawsuit in South Africa, and get a judgement, whether based on US law or South African law, and then he'd have to "register" that judgement in the US if he wanted to enforce it against the US hunter. It might have been smarter to have brought the lawsuit in the US in the first place, because that's where the other side's assets are. Equally, if the hunter is mad at the outfitter, and brings a lawsuit in the US, and wins, he'll have to register that judgement in South Africa, and try to enforce it there, because that's where the outfitter's assets likely are. Crystal clear?

The bottom line is this, in my view. A contract is a good idea because it makes both parties turn their minds to the main points of their agreement, and if they've agreed on those points, then if something goes wrong, decent people will do the right thing, without having to go to court. If one side isn't prepared to do the right thing, then you can sue, but it will almost never be worth it - the costs will outweigh the eventual recovery, unless we're talking a Lord Derby or a Mountain Nyala hunt.

Don't blame me, you asked.

 

[BRICKBURN]

...................
Don't blame me, you asked.

Boom.

Hank, I'll bet you might have gone to school!

 

[KWALATA SAFARIS]

There are really two sides to this. Contracts entered into between outfitters and hunters are likely enforceable (so long as they don't deal with illegal activities - for example, a contract that requires illegal hunting likely wouldn't be enforceable anywhere), and they are likely enforceable in either the country of the hunter or that of the outfitter. That's not the same as saying which law would govern, if the contract is silent.

So if the contract doesn't say "This contract is governed by the laws of South Africa" or similar language (which usually, but not always, decides the matter of the governing law), and assuming the outfitter, and the hunt were in South Africa, and the hunter was from the US, a court would have to decide which jurisdiction had the closest connection to the subject matter of the contract. If I had to guess, I'd say South African law would likely be the governing law for enforcement of the contract, but it might be different if the contract was negotiated and entered into in the US, like at the SCI show. Then it might be US law that would govern.

Deciding which law will govern is only the beginning. You can still bring an action in South Africa to enforce a US law contract, or in the US to enforce a South African law contract, though you run the risk of the lawsuit being transferred to the other jurisdiction. Unless the contract has a clause giving exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of a particular country, and there's no public policy reason not to give effect to that. All clear so far?

So if the outfitter is mad at the US client and wants to sue him, he could launch a lawsuit in South Africa, and get a judgement, whether based on US law or South African law, and then he'd have to "register" that judgement in the US if he wanted to enforce it against the US hunter. It might have been smarter to have brought the lawsuit in the US in the first place, because that's where the other side's assets are. Equally, if the hunter is mad at the outfitter, and brings a lawsuit in the US, and wins, he'll have to register that judgement in South Africa, and try to enforce it there, because that's where the outfitter's assets likely are. Crystal clear?

The bottom line is this, in my view. A contract is a good idea because it makes both parties turn their minds to the main points of their agreement, and if they've agreed on those points, then if something goes wrong, decent people will do the right thing, without having to go to court. If one side isn't prepared to do the right thing, then you can sue, but it will almost never be worth it - the costs will outweigh the eventual recovery, unless we're talking a Lord Derby or a Mountain Nyala hunt.

Don't blame me, you asked.

Straight forward actually... And good to know.... Now I just need a reason to take someone to court and waste a year of my life!....

My best always

 

[Nyati]

Will this go on, or can we say .....next !