Perhaps somebody has encountered a similar situation and resolved this successfully: Large life time loss on faked contract.
I was contacted a UK agency specialising in engineering who wanted me to do work in Germany on a short 6 month contract which I refused. Some weeks later, they came back with a new 18 month contract which they informed me they had negotiated with the end client in Germany, 2 assignments involved of 6 months then 12 months. Fine I accepted and headed off into a blizzard to start work. Very quickly I learned from the end client that there was no second assignment and never had been, the second assignment was added in to the contract to spice up the offer so agency could gent a finders fee. There was a lengthy contract with numerous grey print clauses. Sort of standard. The agency recorded on several separate documents that the contract that it was for 18 months. I have been contracting about 35 years. At 6 months, the first assignment came to an end and the agent came back and said 'oh sorry about that, the client ran out of work for you'. The snag was that the chief engineer in Germany was a pal of mine from before, the agent did not know that I was fully appraised of the truth shortly after I arrived on site. There never was a second assignment. I contacted several lawyers, mostly they say that there is no recourse, that although I was misled, its only what is in print that counts and the expression 'assignment 1' followed by 'assignment 2' within an 18 month contract does not mean, they are obliged to give the second assignment. The German company even put it in writing for me-there never was an 18 month contract. The loss is tremendous as I was about to retire and made many arrangements on foot of the contract. But it seems that as Humpty Dumpty said 'When I say a word, it is exactly what I mean' ......What I received in very equivocal terms was 'its an 18 month contract-2 assignments in different departments'. According to what the legal people say, is that the use of 'assignment' implies that the contract duration is overwritten to mean what ever suits the agent in what ever way they wish it to mean. But this is nonsense, the words 'assignment', contract duration 18 month-have meaning. Effectively, the legal people tell me , that these standard contracts and expressions don't have any worthwhile meaning and that pre contract advice on meaning can also just also be rubbish talk. It happens that I did contract law in the area of labour as a speciality in University and the whole dilution of meaning seems to frame any contract as being worthless. Has any body else encounter this-seemingly robust Contracts for Services now seen as worthless and unenforceable? Has any succeeded in a case in similar circumstances or am I just getting a quick run around from lawyers for a quick buck and move on?
I was contacted a UK agency specialising in engineering who wanted me to do work in Germany on a short 6 month contract which I refused. Some weeks later, they came back with a new 18 month contract which they informed me they had negotiated with the end client in Germany, 2 assignments involved of 6 months then 12 months. Fine I accepted and headed off into a blizzard to start work. Very quickly I learned from the end client that there was no second assignment and never had been, the second assignment was added in to the contract to spice up the offer so agency could gent a finders fee. There was a lengthy contract with numerous grey print clauses. Sort of standard. The agency recorded on several separate documents that the contract that it was for 18 months. I have been contracting about 35 years. At 6 months, the first assignment came to an end and the agent came back and said 'oh sorry about that, the client ran out of work for you'. The snag was that the chief engineer in Germany was a pal of mine from before, the agent did not know that I was fully appraised of the truth shortly after I arrived on site. There never was a second assignment. I contacted several lawyers, mostly they say that there is no recourse, that although I was misled, its only what is in print that counts and the expression 'assignment 1' followed by 'assignment 2' within an 18 month contract does not mean, they are obliged to give the second assignment. The German company even put it in writing for me-there never was an 18 month contract. The loss is tremendous as I was about to retire and made many arrangements on foot of the contract. But it seems that as Humpty Dumpty said 'When I say a word, it is exactly what I mean' ......What I received in very equivocal terms was 'its an 18 month contract-2 assignments in different departments'. According to what the legal people say, is that the use of 'assignment' implies that the contract duration is overwritten to mean what ever suits the agent in what ever way they wish it to mean. But this is nonsense, the words 'assignment', contract duration 18 month-have meaning. Effectively, the legal people tell me , that these standard contracts and expressions don't have any worthwhile meaning and that pre contract advice on meaning can also just also be rubbish talk. It happens that I did contract law in the area of labour as a speciality in University and the whole dilution of meaning seems to frame any contract as being worthless. Has any body else encounter this-seemingly robust Contracts for Services now seen as worthless and unenforceable? Has any succeeded in a case in similar circumstances or am I just getting a quick run around from lawyers for a quick buck and move on?
Comment