My Search agreement with Property owners

[ericwt]

SEARCH AND SALVAGE AGREEMENT



This agreement, dated this ____ day of _______ 20___, between ___________________________________

hereinafter known as the Property Owners, and _____________________________ hereinafter known as theSalvager.

In consideration of the Salvager's undertaking to devote his time and equipment in a search of the premises described as:

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________


The Property Owners agree that the Salvager. shall receive as compensation for his services __________% of the recovery of ALL money, jewelry, and artifacts, which may have been lost or concealed in, on, or about the above premises and discovered by the Salvager.

The Salvager is given full authority to work in, on, or about the above described premises at any reasonable time, subject only to such notice as the Property Owners may require in advance of such work. Each party waves any possible claim against the other for liability for any careless or negligent act or omission of the other arising out of or in consequences of the search herein provided for.

Agreement shall be effective for ____ months from the date hereof.

Executed at ____________________________________________ date _______________



_____________________________________________
Property Owner


____________________________________________
Salvager

[Rob in KS]

Thanks for posting this

[ericwt]

No problem. My pleasure

[shepcal]

ericwt,
Appreciate the form. Copied and will use. As for the owner, wouldn't go on the property w/o his permission or knowledge. As I said, I know him and trust him. Wouldn't consider cutting the tenant out, cause I wouldn't of known about the opportunity, without him. I've seen what gold or 'riches' can do to some people. I would enjoy the hunt, but know I find nuggets, bout every Saturday, and don't want to waste my time w/o a bit of compensation.
Thanks, Shep

[ericwt]

Glad you could use it. I feel the same way you do. But I have learned people will always make their own decisions.

You can modify it to include the tenant on the agreement. Add a line or two to spell out everyone's % and add a line for the tenant to sign.

Go get you some gold!

[IndianaSmith]

Eric, I was just wondering if this clause :

"The Property Owners agree that the Salvager. shall receive as compensation for his services __________% of the recovery of ALL money, jewelry, and artifacts, which may have been lost or concealed in, on, or about the above premises and discovered by the Salvager."

Could be taken as "face value" (since it doesn't state)? I mean if you say agreed to 25%, and found say a silver dollar valued at $1000, could a lawyer for the landowner say "25% of the dollar is .25 cents"?

Just making sure to CYA.

Smitty

[ericwt]

That is a good question.

If his lawyer said face value you could just as easily argue that you are fine with paying him 75 cents. Or get out the hacksaw and cut 25% of the coin off for yourself.

I have never had that problem and I have been using this agreement for over 10 years.

I will not sign an agreement for less than 50% myself. If I found just one silver dollar, I would get with the owner and agree on the value. Then either I pay him 50% of the value or he pays me 50% of the value and then keeps the coin.

Usually it is more casual than that for me. We often can just come to an understanding without any problem.

The main thing for me has always been with an signed agreement he cannot claim it was his hidden money and I am a trespasser.

I will have to consult an attorney on that one. It will be sometime next week. Unless there is one lurking here...

[IndianaSmith]

I was just curious. I'd hate to see something unfair like I used as an example happen to someone. Seems like if there's a "loophole" in something, someone will use it to cheat a deserving person out of it.

If it were me, I'd change it to:
The Property Owners agree that the Salvager. shall receive as compensation for his services __________% of the appraised value of ALL money, jewelry, and artifacts recovered, which may have been lost or concealed in, on, or about the above premises and discovered by the Salvager.


30 years ago, I'd have taken a handshake as "gospel". Today I wouldn't ever trust a contract.

Smitty

[ericwt]

Interesting, however appraised value is not actual value. If the coin sold it would not fetch anywhere near appraised value.

Perhaps a clause to sell the item and then spilt the profits on a percentage basis.

With me the main thing is with an signed agreement he cannot claim it was his hidden money and I am a trespasser.

At least I have a shot in court with this one. I really do not think a judge would side with the argument you proposed. It is also likely the owner would spend more than the coin was worth on legal fees (so would you) so it really is a no win type of thing.

But regardless I will be talking to an attorney on this and updating this. Times have changed!

This is why I am spending less time treasure hunting in the USA. It is sad when I can deal with foreign governments easier than I can land owners in the US.

[spez401]

eric asked me to take a quick look at this thread... which I did.

The agreement is very straightforward. There are only 3 things I would change.
First is the spelling error... waves should be waives

Second, I would change the term Salvager to detector or even your name. I find that people tend to get off by "technical" terms and legaleese. You might get a better reaction with a "softer" term.

Finally... the question was raised about the "value" of an item - appraised or otherwise. I would change that paragraph to:
"The Property Owners agree that the Salvager shall receive as compensation for his services __________% of the value of ALL money, jewelry, and artifacts, which may have been lost or concealed in, on, or about the above premises and discovered and recovered by the Salvager."

Other than that... it is plain language and is likely to be interpreted that way by the courts

steve

[Rob in KS]

Excellent suggestions. I was thinking about toning it down a little myself.

[morbiusandneo]

SEARCH AND SALVAGE AGREEMENT



This agreement, dated this ____ day of _______ 20___, between ___________________________________

hereinafter known as the Property Owners, and _____________________________ hereinafter known as theSalvager.

In consideration of the Salvager's undertaking to devote his time and equipment in a search of the premises described as:

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________


The Property Owners agree that the Salvager. shall receive as compensation for his services __________% of the recovery of ALL money, jewelry, and artifacts, which may have been lost or concealed in, on, or about the above premises and discovered by the Salvager.

The Salvager is given full authority to work in, on, or about the above described premises at any reasonable time, subject only to such notice as the Property Owners may require in advance of such work. Each party waves any possible claim against the other for liability for any careless or negligent act or omission of the other arising out of or in consequences of the search herein provided for.

Agreement shall be effective for ____ months from the date hereof.

Executed at ____________________________________________ date _______________



_____________________________________________
Property Owner


____________________________________________
Salvager

A release from liability to land owner of any injury to "Salvagor" should be included too, imo. stvn.

[ericwt]

Thanks everyone for the input!

This just shows how valuable TN is for exchanging ideas.

[teverly]

I dont believe i would sue if an injury were a result of my own neglect or not paying attention.
But the way i read your waiver if the land owner comitts a negligent act,say hits you with his car or mower ect while you are detecting then he would not be liable??
Like i said if I twist my ankle or cut myself or break my equipment then thats my problem,but if an injury was due to negligence on the part of the land owner ie they are a direct cause then i would have to think about it.
And no i dont consider a plowed farm field or torn up yard causing a twisted ankle ect as there fault.....
Just curious....

[spez401]

morbius,

I specifically didn't address the "landowner liability" issue, for a few reasons. First, every state has different rules on landowner liability regarding guests, business invitees, and tresspassers. Those laws and precedents are more likely to have weight in a court than a contract, since going "against" them would change the existing law. Having a contridiction between the state law and the contract may void all or part of the contract (unless a clause is put in that states "If any or part of this contract is deemed null and void, it does not negate the entire contract, only that poriton deemed null and void").

Second, putting in the owner liability and "null and void" clauses may scare off more people than it pulls in. many people get scared away by the "legaleese"... It is safer to work in plain, simple language. Also, it is redundant, because there are already laws in place which determine that liability (see above)

Finally, as teverly mentioned, you may absolve the owner from a liability from which he is truly responsible for. In drafting a contract like this, remember, you are trying to protect YOURSELF first, and everyone else (aka the landowner), second. If the owner set up bear traps to ward off tresspassers, then forgot to tell you about it, and you sustain serious injuries when you step in one, should the landowner not be held responsible, and saddle you with the medical bills (a little bit of an exaggeration)?

Generally around the country, the following applies:
disclaimer - the law is different everywhere. check your local laws as they may likely be different

1. Guests - usually the landowner owes a duty of care to notify a guest of any deficiency in which the guest may injure himself (obvious or hidden).
2. Business Invitees - a landowner has a duty to keep premises in good order and notify of deficiences which may cause harm. Have a duty to keep clean and repair deficiencies (spills, hazards, etc) in which the invitee may be harmed
3. The landowner has a duty not to willfully harm a tresspasser (ie, traps). In many jurisdictions, the landowner has a duty not to make an "attractive nuisance" which would draw trespassers onto the property, or to keep said nuisance hidden, or safe (eg - trampoline, swingset, etc)

Hope that helps
steve

[Planet1mars (mike)]

Thanks i was just requesting info on this subject... i been haveing home owners turning me away becuse of liability issues

[Blacksheep]

Good idea but I did note one word that, as a property owner, would make me nervous, that being "premises". Would that not technically allow for going into buildings, ponds if present etc, for search/recovery purposes?

Even with the blank area noted as "described as", if a landowner was not careful and/or the detectorist was unscrupulous , this could be a huge problem, I am no lawyer, I could be way off but at first glance I see potential for abuse.

[grillz]

A fine ,clear, easy to read agreement, but would make the following changes:

Replace 'salvagers' or even 'metal detectorists' with 'searcher(s)'. Salvager sounds too commercial, as though you need a license, bonding, etc. 'Salvager' also seems to have the word 'treasure' attached to it. How many times have you heard the expression 'treasure savagers' or 'treasure hunters' in the same breath? I can't tell you how many times people have seen me with an MD and automatically assumed I was trying to find buried, (a chest of), treasure. When I tell them "I'm just poking around to see what I can find," they'll lose interest and will usually leave within a few minutes.
Metal detectorist can mean to some people, gold and silver, again treasure, and treasure hunting.

'Searcher' is a much softer word and doesn't have 'treasure' attached to it. When you go out with your MD you really are searching for something. When something is found it is, recovered, again a soft word, not salvaged.

'Searcher' leaves the entire spectrum open as to what you're searching (looking) for: pottery, an old boundary marker, something the owner lost and hasn't been able to find, an old farm dump, etc.,etc.

The part starting: The property Owners agree that the salvager(searcher(s) shall receive as compensation_______% of all etc., I added to: money , jewerly, and artifacts, OR OTHER ITEMS OR MINERALS that may have been lost etc.
I wouldn't want to find a gold seam or stumble upon a pocket of quality gem stones and be told, 'that wasn't part of what you were looking for, sorry.'

In the last paragraph I deleted the word 'omission'. Because, if the property owner knew of and old well that had planking put across the opening and was now overgrown, and didn't tell you about it, and you find it by stepping on it...
The way I read it with the word 'omission' included, is the property owners couldn't be held for damages caused by their negligence in the above example.
By the same token, the searcher(s) would be obligated to telling the property owners that they have covered a hole with some wood or marked it off with some tape and not to go near it. The intent here is the searcher will be back the following day to finish the search.

What are your thoughts on these changes?

[Shiloh1]

Thanks everyone for some really good suggestions. I will definitely use this form and the suggestions that were put forth.