Another ridiculous contract

[SueEllen]

**** that. Can imagine a dodgy client getting two weeks out of you for free and then saying sorry. It WOULD happen.

Would only work with an SME. Large companies and multi-nationals take ages to sort out passwords, equipment etc so you can actually do something.

[SpontaneousOrder]

In future NEVER turn up on site until ALL the paperwork is finalised.

And even if you're lucky, it sets a certain opinion of you in the agent's mind. You need to set the tone from the offset - even if that means missing a few days invoicing, IMO.

[Boo]

In future:
1. Don't turn up on site until all the paperwork is agreed

An alternative to this is to send the agency a contract which is prepared by yourself with a clause stating that all changes must be agreed in writing and signed by yourself before becoming effective. Then send it by recorded delivery timed to arrive before your start date. If it arrives at the agency's registered address before you commence work then those terms will apply. Google "battle of the forms" for more details.

Boo

[northernladuk]

An alternative to this is to send the agency a contract which is prepared by yourself with a clause stating that all changes must be agreed in writing and signed by yourself before becoming effective. Then send it by recorded delivery timed to arrive before your start date. If it arrives at the agency's registered address before you commence work then those terms will apply. Google "battle of the forms" for more details.

Boo

Can't see how that will work. The contractor is well aware the terms will be supplied by the agency. It's highly likely the contractor is aware the agent will not accept a contractors contract so refusal of the contract you send is already in place.

And it does state that it's the person putting forward the latest on AND if they are not objected to.

Can't see his having a hope in hell of standing up.

[Boo]

Can't see how that will work. The contractor is well aware the terms will be supplied by the agency. It's highly likely the contractor is aware the agent will not accept a contractors contract so refusal of the contract you send is already in place.

That's complete nonsense. There is no suggestion of inequality in law between contractor and agency and the "battle of the forms" is a well established legal principle. Care to show a case reference as to where an implicit refusal was prefered to an established communication of terms ?

And it does state that it's the person putting forward the latest on AND if they are not objected to.

Can't see his having a hope in hell of standing up.

They have to be objected to before the contract commences. The law on rejecting contract terms is the same for agent as it is for contractor and in fact on one occasion when an agent dragged their heels getting a contract back to me I did exactly what I suggest and found the agent accepted my terms subject to a few changes.

Boo

[northernladuk]

That's complete nonsense. There is no suggestion of inequality in law between contractor and agency and the "battle of the forms" is a well established legal principle. Care to show a case reference as to where an implicit refusal was prefered to an established communication of terms ?


They have to be objected to before the contract commences. The law on rejecting contract terms is the same for agent as it is for contractor and in fact on one occasion when an agent dragged their heels getting a contract back to me I did exactly what I suggest and found the agent accepted my terms subject to a few changes.

Boo

All quite plausible but it's a horribly grey area no? Surely there is some defence allowable to the agent. He gets the contract, rings up to refuse and you say tough I'm on site. I can't see a court being particularly impressed with that. I guess it's all down to how reasonable the contract you supply is as well. If it's close enough it could stick but if it's wholly unreasonable to the agent surely again there is a chance to argue.

All that said, it's getting very hypothetical and if it's got to this stage it won't go well for anyone really. Simple answer is just to tell the agent you won't turn up without a contract and hey presto, it will be there in time. Really no need to have to go to this level however interesting it is to discuss it.

[LondonManc]

All quite plausible but it's a horribly grey area no? Surely there is some defence allowable to the agent. He gets the contract, rings up to refuse and you say tough I'm on site. I can't see a court being particularly impressed with that. I guess it's all down to how reasonable the contract you supply is as well. If it's close enough it could stick but if it's wholly unreasonable to the agent surely again there is a chance to argue.

All that said, it's getting very hypothetical and if it's got to this stage it won't go well for anyone really. Simple answer is just to tell the agent you won't turn up without a contract and hey presto, it will be there in time. Really no need to have to go to this level however interesting it is to discuss it.

To be fair, no greyer than the OP's situation. That said, if OP has signed his contract and returned it already, then it's fait accomplit. If OP hasn't signed it, then it's well worth whizzing it over to QDOS while telling the agency that you are working in principle but subject to successful contract review. If you're proving likeable, enthusiastic and your face fits, then the client will want to keep you and the agency will have to bend over and take the review. If QDOS do review, ask them which changes are the nice to haves (and easily trumped by working practices) so that you know what to back down on. The pay terms sound ridiculous, especially in these days of <1% interest.

[Bee]

I took a role with EDS (now HP, or now virtually annihilated). That stipulated no pay if terminated in the first two weeks.

No way.

Leave one or 2 weeks after start a project can happen without your fault. I had a colleague where the project he was working was canceled two weeks after arrival, he had 2 weeks of notice period and the client paid the agency one month.

In this case, the agency will steal the contractor money because of that nonsense clause.

If you have the timesheet with the client signture keep it, can be very usefull.

[Abraham]

No way.

In this case, the agency will steal the contractor money because of that nonsense clause.

If you have the timesheet with the client signture keep it, can be very usefull.

The agency, although seems to be a big name, appears to be having some thugs writing the contract terms with the sole aim of deceiving the contractor to steal the hard earned money of the contractor. They deliberately delayed providing access to the timesheet system to log the time.

I really made the big mistake of signing the contract in a hurry and sending back to them.

Yes, with the terms as they are, the contractor is totally under the mercy of the Agency for payment for the first 4 week. With such dubious terms, not sure whether they will pay on time, even after four weeks. I will keep post my updates here.

Anyway, having signed this worst contract, at least would these kind of conditions make the contract strong against IR35, as there are lot of risks to the contractor with such one sided and unreasonable terms?

[northernladuk]

The agency, although seems to be a big name, appears to be having some thugs writing the contract terms with the sole aim of deceiving the contractor to steal the hard earned money of the contractor. They deliberately delayed providing access to the timesheet system to log the time.

Not hard to deceive the contractors when they don't bother making sure they have a copy of the contract and read it before starting.

Are you sure they deliberately delayed it? What benefit is for them in that?

What's your opt in/out status?