Contract Terminated Early for 'Poor Performance' - Now Accused of Breach of Contract

[Fred Bloggs]

Not always. Agents stick have a habit of sticking in loads of get out clauses to protect themselves.

However the fact that the OP's wife was offered an extension is the biggest problem the agency has in fighting this.

I reckon a small claims court would look through such a clause if it was demonstrated that the client had accepted and paid for the work though.

[northernladuk]

I can't but help think that's there's more going on at the client side and you should be able to dispute.

Your wife got an extension and then was accused of poor performance while she was on holiday? That doesn't sound right to me.

It doesn't sound right but I've seen it happen. It could be (no disrespect to the OPs wife) she got the extension through client apathy. It staggers me why clients put with crap contractors just because it's easy and they are on site. She then goes on holiday and whoever picks the work up can either complete it so she isn't required or they discover it's so bad she got to go and she's not there so it's easy.

When we get these stories of people terminated on the spot I'm always a little suspicious. I've seen quite a few contractors either walked off site or not let in and in every single case bar non there has been a pretty solid reason. I just don't think in a vast number of cases it's to save money. It's not the money of the guy who's doing the deed so surely he isn't going be making decisions to potentially breach when he doesn't have to.
Am sure it happens sometimes but I can't believe it's very often, particular in larger organisations.

[SueEllen]

It doesn't sound right but I've seen it happen. It could be (no disrespect to the OPs wife) she got the extension through client apathy. It staggers me why clients put with crap contractors just because it's easy and they are on site. She then goes on holiday and whoever picks the work up can either complete it so she isn't required or they discover it's so bad she got to go and she's not there so it's easy.

When we get these stories of people terminated on the spot I'm always a little suspicious. I've seen quite a few contractors either walked off site or not let in and in every single case bar non there has been a pretty solid reason. I just don't think in a vast number of cases it's to save money. It's not the money of the guy who's doing the deed so surely he isn't going be making decisions to potentially breach when he doesn't have to.
Am sure it happens sometimes but I can't believe it's very often, particular in larger organisations.

Civil cases are ruled on the balance of probabilities. so if you walk someone of site/remove them when they go on holiday after giving them an extension you better have good documentary proof of their sudden poor performance.

[northernladuk]

Civil cases are ruled on the balance of probabilities. so if you walk someone of site/remove them when they go on holiday after giving them an extension you better have good documentary proof of their sudden poor performance.

If it ever gets that far which it never does.

[psychocandy]

Erm. How can she be guilty of breach for poor performance when there is (probably) a clause saying she can be instantly terminated for poor performance. Surely everything is as per the contract and the clause was used as it was designed to be. No breach there at all so I no way the agent can defend that.
That might be unhappy they've lost commission and they could sue for losses due to the actions of the contractor but certainly not from the money the contractor is owed.

We've discussed this before and I think we worked out its considerably less than a month of contractor income. They only lose their commission, not the whole lot.

I was thinking that. Not sure whats gone on here but client wants rid by the looks. Bit strange that extension had been offered but who knows what backstabbing has been going on. Either way thats the end at client.

How can this be breach though? Client has said want them gone and has invoked clause to do so. Either way they pay up until that date.

Sounds like agent is miffed that hes now going to lose money and want to keep the last months payment to offset. Which as others have said they cant do.

Another vote for telling agent to stuff it and pay up or else.

[psychocandy]

Of course, is there anything that could be construed as breach of contract? Just asking...

If its just client is not happy with performance then all they can do is get rid as they've done. They've signed timesheets I guess so that the end if that.