Restrictive covenant

[Lance]

How would they prove that though? That's what is unclear to me.

just try thinking about that for a few seconds and you'll realise how dumb a question it is.

[ladymuck]

...
The agency were always going to get their cut. The differnce is whether they got 13% for someone that they, or their representative found, or 5% for someone the client found.
...

This - the rates may change but the principle stays the same.

Whilst I said they get a body in for doing naff all, I forgot that some agencies will charge a different rate if they have to do something other than pass payments about.

[cannon999]

just try thinking about that for a few seconds and you'll realise how dumb a question it is.

I don't realise that's the point. If the client wasn't looking for anybody and the recommended person in question was never going to go through an agency then without the recommendation nothing would have happened. Where does the loss come from from the agency perspective?

[northernladuk]

just try thinking about that for a few seconds and you'll realise how dumb a question it is.

Which one?

[ladymuck]

I don't realise that's the point. If the client wasn't looking for anybody and the recommended person in question was never going to go through an agency then without the recommendation nothing would have happened. Where does the loss come from from the agency perspective?

Because you made the client realise they needed someone. So their status changed from "no vacancies" to "vacancies". The client may have a contract with the agency for some exclusivity over using them for certain types of resourcing - have you seen the contract between the client and agency? Are you 100% certain that the person you've introduced is going direct to the client and not via an agency?

[cannon999]

Are you 100% certain that the person you've introduced is going direct to the client and not via an agency?

Yes

[northernladuk]

Yes

Is it a permie or a contractor? . If its the former you don't have a problem.

/thread

[ladymuck]

Ah so this isn't an "in theory" question.

What you're saying is that you've breached your contract and you're now having a squeaky bum moment having realised that, if the agency finds out, you're going to have to lube up.



Too late now, it seems. I hope it all works out for you.

[cannon999]

Is it a permie or a contractor? . If its the former you don't have a problem.

/thread

Contractor but why is there a difference?

[cannon999]

Ah so this isn't an "in theory" question.

What you're saying is that you've breached your contract and you're now having a squeaky bum moment having realised that, if the agency finds out, you're going to have to lube up.



Too late now, it seems. I hope it all works out for you.

For now this question is theory.