Contract changes by the agency without notice and agreement
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Posts 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    3,705
    Thanks (Given)
    5
    Thanks (Received)
    54
    Likes (Given)
    268
    Likes (Received)
    302

    Default

    It sounds like the client simply want to reduce the rate paid.

    If they want to do this, they are effectively saying "We are terminating your contract. Would you like a new one on a reduced rate?"

    This is relatively common mechanism when a client wants to cut a rate.

  2. #12

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Non-Event Horizon
    Posts
    8,704
    Thanks (Given)
    339
    Thanks (Received)
    588
    Likes (Given)
    2221
    Likes (Received)
    2639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmo21 View Post
    It sounds like the client simply want to reduce the rate paid.

    If they want to do this, they are effectively saying "We are terminating your contract. Would you like a new one on a reduced rate?"

    This is relatively common mechanism when a client wants to cut a rate.
    It could be that the client doesn't know what a massive cut the agent is taking.

    If the client is paying £500 and the OP (with due respect) is a £300 a day contractor, then the client would no doubt want to reduce the rate.
    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist

  3. #13

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    3,705
    Thanks (Given)
    5
    Thanks (Received)
    54
    Likes (Given)
    268
    Likes (Received)
    302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LondonManc View Post
    It could be that the client doesn't know what a massive cut the agent is taking.

    If the client is paying £500 and the OP (with due respect) is a £300 a day contractor, then the client would no doubt want to reduce the rate.
    One of the many reasons they want to reduce the rate, yes.

  4. #14

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Non-Event Horizon
    Posts
    8,704
    Thanks (Given)
    339
    Thanks (Received)
    588
    Likes (Given)
    2221
    Likes (Received)
    2639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmo21 View Post
    One of the many reasons they want to reduce the rate, yes.
    As you say, it's also the standard way that rate cuts across the board are done - notice served and all contractors reissued with contracts taking them up to the same end date as the original.

    If it's an isolated incident, I'd always think that the agency is on a massive margin.
    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist

  5. #15

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    3,705
    Thanks (Given)
    5
    Thanks (Received)
    54
    Likes (Given)
    268
    Likes (Received)
    302

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LondonManc View Post
    As you say, it's also the standard way that rate cuts across the board are done - notice served and all contractors reissued with contracts taking them up to the same end date as the original.

    If it's an isolated incident, I'd always think that the agency is on a massive margin.
    Very true, and something for the OP to keep in mind.

  6. #16

    Fingers like lightning

    billybiro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    600
    Thanks (Given)
    8
    Thanks (Received)
    30
    Likes (Given)
    119
    Likes (Received)
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teapot418 View Post
    I would also add -

    Was the mistake an obvious one? e.g. a daily rate being listed as an hourly rate? i.e. did you know it was wrong and think "woohoo", or did you genuinely think the new one was what was intended?

    If the mistake was obvious, then the courts would not find the contract binding.
    Define, objectively and unambiguously, "obvious".

  7. #17

    I live on CUK

    SueEllen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the Park
    Posts
    27,772
    Thanks (Given)
    1396
    Thanks (Received)
    1117
    Likes (Given)
    4484
    Likes (Received)
    4151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by billybiro View Post
    Define, objectively and unambiguously, "obvious".
    Judges Ike other lawyers are use to reading complex documents and as this is a B2B contract the OP doesn't get the same leeway as a consumer.
    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

  8. #18

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Floating in a sea of hyperbole
    Posts
    414
    Thanks (Given)
    46
    Thanks (Received)
    29
    Likes (Given)
    160
    Likes (Received)
    117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by billybiro View Post
    Define, objectively and unambiguously, "obvious".
    That's for a judge to decide. In the 1939 case that I referred to earlier, the negotiations were for "30000 skins at 10d per skin" but the contract for "30000 skins at 10d per lb" so there was clearly an obvious mistake.

    If the negotiations were for £300 a day and the agent has put £300 an hour in the contract, that's an obvious mistake.

    If the negotiations were for £300 a day, the agent put £300 a day in the contract, but is now saying "we meant £250 a day" then that's not going to be an obvious mistake.

    Judges will use a degree of common sense every now and then.
    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. But Gandhi never had to deal with HMRC

  9. #19

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Non-Event Horizon
    Posts
    8,704
    Thanks (Given)
    339
    Thanks (Received)
    588
    Likes (Given)
    2221
    Likes (Received)
    2639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RonBW View Post
    That's for a judge to decide. In the 1939 case that I referred to earlier, the negotiations were for "30000 skins at 10d per skin" but the contract for "30000 skins at 10d per lb" so there was clearly an obvious mistake.

    If the negotiations were for £300 a day and the agent has put £300 an hour in the contract, that's an obvious mistake.

    If the negotiations were for £300 a day, the agent put £300 a day in the contract, but is now saying "we meant £250 a day" then that's not going to be an obvious mistake.

    Judges will use a degree of common sense every now and then.
    True; there could have been an admin cock-up where someone has realised that the contractor is getting the whole fee and they forgot to knock off the agency cut before passing it on.
    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist

  10. #20

    I live on CUK

    SueEllen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the Park
    Posts
    27,772
    Thanks (Given)
    1396
    Thanks (Received)
    1117
    Likes (Given)
    4484
    Likes (Received)
    4151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LondonManc View Post
    True; there could have been an admin cock-up where someone has realised that the contractor is getting the whole fee and they forgot to knock off the agency cut before passing it on.
    The contractor shouldn't be aware of that.

    They shouldn't have knowledge of the full contract between the client and agency including payment amounts and terms which is why you don't want to see it.
    "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.