Contract terminated before start date - anything I can do legally?

[pr1]

The matter is not straightforward. Legally there is something you can do: start a claim. How much did you lose (the value of 30 days' work)? That would be the value of your claim. But you can break it down into 'heads'. These clauses about not being entitled to pay should not be read in isolation. You are not automatically defeated by them. If the value is more than £10,000 you have to pay a fair amount for your claim but if you litigate in person they may settle up if you put together a valid claim that will survive strike out applications. The reason they might settle early is the size of the legal costs they will face.

"failing to gain" is not the same as "lose"

If you worked those 30 days and they didn't pay you then yes, you have lost the value of 30 days work and could perceivably have a claim

If you did not work and therefore had opportunity to use those 30 days to earn money elsewhere, then you haven't "lost" anything

[Lance]

The matter is not straightforward. Legally there is something you can do: start a claim. How much did you lose (the value of 30 days' work)? That would be the value of your claim. But you can break it down into 'heads'. These clauses about not being entitled to pay should not be read in isolation. You are not automatically defeated by them. If the value is more than £10,000 you have to pay a fair amount for your claim but if you litigate in person they may settle up if you put together a valid claim that will survive strike out applications. The reason they might settle early is the size of the legal costs they will face.

if you go to a court other than the small claims court, then the agent will be able to claim their costs if/when they win. So their legal costs become yours.

IANAL / ANAY

[andrew142]

Rubbish. There is no loss, there is no mutuality of obligation here. The client does not have to offer work. They could have started the contract and then each day said they had no work, so please go home. The only obligation on the client is to pay for work done to an acceptable standard, delivered on time. Repeated - There was no work, there is no loss.

You introduce the term 'mutuality of obligation.' But any claim would be for breach of contract. The concept of MOO would have no place and serve no purpose in a claim for breach of contract. The contract was terminated before the start date. So there could be a claim for losses arising from an invalid termination.

[andrew142]

if you go to a court other than the small claims court, then the agent will be able to claim their costs if/when they win. So their legal costs become yours.

IANAL / ANAY

That is correct. But if you are a litigant in person and you the party to the claim is your limited company, even if they win they have to wonder how much your company is worth since they will be very unlikely to recover more in costs than the worth of the company assets. That may well be the auction value of some office furniture and a few laptops. That is why they may well settle before the first hearing.

[andrew142]

"failing to gain" is not the same as "lose"

If you worked those 30 days and they didn't pay you then yes, you have lost the value of 30 days work and could perceivably have a claim

If you did not work and therefore had opportunity to use those 30 days to earn money elsewhere, then you haven't "lost" anything

That is not the way that 'losses' is conceived in the field of commercial law. Loss of expected value is comprehended at a fundamental level in commercial law. The basic principle is that if a party to a contract breaches it then the innocent party is entitled to be put in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. And the principle is predicated on the contract completing.

[andrew142]

"failing to gain" is not the same as "lose"

If you worked those 30 days and they didn't pay you then yes, you have lost the value of 30 days work and could perceivably have a claim

If you did not work and therefore had opportunity to use those 30 days to earn money elsewhere, then you haven't "lost" anything

There is something called the 'duty to mitigate' your losses. So if you obtain work within the 30 days' period for example then you will have lost less money than if you do not secure a new contract. You do not have to claim for a fixed amount. You can claim for 'up to' the value of the 30 days. That way you can bring a claim before the 30 days have elapsed.

[pr1]

So did you just come here to ask a question you didn't want an answer to?

Best of luck in your pursuit

[Fred Bloggs]

You introduce the term 'mutuality of obligation.' But any claim would be for breach of contract. The concept of MOO would have no place and serve no purpose in a claim for breach of contract. The contract was terminated before the start date. So there could be a claim for losses arising from an invalid termination.

Nonsense. The client is perfectly entitled for the contractor to turn up each day and to be sent home because there's no work available. There is no breach because there is no work. Really, this stuff has been done to death for years and years.

[Fred Bloggs]

So did you just come here to ask a question you didn't want an answer to?

Best of luck in your pursuit

I just responded again and shouldn't have. This new poster is just trolling the forum.

[eek]

Oh the initial posts of a Gricer sockie - I will update my ignore list