Outside IR35 PS contract
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Posts 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11

    Fingers like lightning

    Andy Hallett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    778
    Thanks (Given)
    12
    Thanks (Received)
    87
    Likes (Given)
    63
    Likes (Received)
    308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesbrown View Post
    Correct, but I wouldn't touch a contract with such broad transfer of liability clauses, enforceable or otherwise. Guff clauses are often used as leverage via threats to test them, and that could be an expensive game. Never sign a contract with crap that shouldn't be there.
    Fair enough. My point was that these are likely generic.

  2. #12

    Godlike

    jamesbrown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    5,254
    Thanks (Given)
    69
    Thanks (Received)
    373
    Likes (Given)
    561
    Likes (Received)
    1642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Hallett View Post
    Fair enough. My point was that these are likely generic.
    Yep, understood, just noting that it's best to get them removed. Happens a lot with non-compete clauses too - best to get them removed from the start, because they're generally unenforceable unless there's some specific/concrete knowledge that needs to be protected.

  3. #13

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    84
    Thanks (Given)
    2
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    24
    Likes (Received)
    18

    Default

    Sounds to me that Agencies need to up their game and make sure that new contracts have had due diligence applied.

    Saying these are just generic terms is not good enough TBH

  4. #14

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Non-Event Horizon
    Posts
    8,704
    Thanks (Given)
    339
    Thanks (Received)
    587
    Likes (Given)
    2221
    Likes (Received)
    2637

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Semtex View Post
    Sounds to me that Agencies need to up their game and make sure that new contracts have had due diligence applied.

    Saying these are just generic terms is not good enough TBH
    The agencies have been duly diligent. They're trying their hardest to pass the liability down the line. Whatever way Andy tries to dress it up, that clause can be seen as a way for agencies to declare outside then pass the buck.

    It's pretty much been my concern all along - how responsible for the fine/back tax will the agency be? While it's a generic clause, I'd want an extra clause inserting, confirm that "the above clause in no way exonerates the agency from its financial obligations should the contract later be deemed inside IR35 while initially being declared outside IR35."
    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist

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.