Problem with the conditions of a contract..

[tim123]

I've had this clause before and insisited on it being changed to a mutual notice period. Always had contracts IR35 reviewed and this has never been a problem. Only had to use notice period once in 10 years but I'm glad I had it as was working in a hell hole! My concern with no notice period (and this may be invalid) was that I might be able to be sued for leaving early.

It is valid, and they are able to sue, why would it be there otherwise?

tim

[Bluebird]

I'm tempted to agree ... once one side doesn't want to continue there seems little point hanging around for a week or month.

Ahhh, but if they have to give you notice it may mean they'll pay you as well as escorting you from the building.

I had a project that got canned and was given notice, got another gig by end of week and was being paid twice for 3 weeks work !

[Lewis]

Ahhh, but if they have to give you notice it may mean they'll pay you as well as escorting you from the building.

I had a project that got canned and was given notice, got another gig by end of week and was being paid twice for 3 weeks work !

[boredsenseless]

Ahhh, but if they have to give you notice it may mean they'll pay you as well as escorting you from the building.

I had a project that got canned and was given notice, got another gig by end of week and was being paid twice for 3 weeks work !

Actually as a real business you have a responsibility to minimise your clients exposure to cost, and as such you should have dislosed your new contract and written of the remaining notice period.

Alternatively the client could have insisted you come in and then you would have been stuffed!

[Bluebird]

Actually as a real business you have a responsibility to minimise your clients exposure to cost, and as such you should have dislosed your new contract and written of the remaining notice period.

Alternatively the client could have insisted you come in and then you would have been stuffed!

1. Why do I have a responsibility to minimise my clients exposure to risk ? They did this themselves by using a clause in the contract to end that contract early. My business was based on a revenue that hsould have come in for many months, by terminating they stopped this revenue stream - it's a penalty payment you won't find any other business paying this back if they got another piece of work.

2.No I'd be ok, I'd just use my right of substitution as per IR35 and sub-contract.

[tim123]

1. Why do I have a responsibility to minimise my clients exposure to risk ? They did this themselves by using a clause in the contract to end that contract early. My business was based on a revenue that hsould have come in for many months, by terminating they stopped this revenue stream - it's a penalty payment you won't find any other business paying this back if they got another piece of work.

2.No I'd be ok, I'd just use my right of substitution as per IR35 and sub-contract.

It's called mitigating your loss. If you have a claim for compensation due to termination, you are legally *obliged* to offset your claim with any savings that you have made by not having to fulfill the contract. This includes income that you earn during the period that you otherwise wouldn't have earnt.

tim

[Bluebird]

It's called mitigating your loss. If you have a claim for compensation due to termination, you are legally *obliged* to offset your claim with any savings that you have made by not having to fulfill the contract. This includes income that you earn during the period that you otherwise wouldn't have earnt.

tim

It's not a claim for compensation though, they are just honouring the terms of the contract - as stated previously they have the right to ask me to attend site, but didn't do so.

[tim123]

It's not a claim for compensation though, they are just honouring the terms of the contract - as stated previously they have the right to ask me to attend site, but didn't do so.

It may look like it is them honouring the contract, but it is not.

It is them compensating you, for them not needing you to honour the contract.

If this was a reatainer to make sure that you are available for work at the end of the payment period, then it would be a contractual payment. But if all that happens at the end of the paid period is that you walk away, then this is a compensation payment for them not requiring you to perform the contract.

tim

[Denny]

"This is a fixed term contract where the Consultancy has to complete the contract duration. The consultancy cannot end the contract prior to this end date. The employment business can terminate the contract by giving 14 days notice in writing."

Can someone tell me whether this is acceptable, or do I need to get the agency to rewrite the clause, so that "the consultancy" can also terminate the contract with 14 days notice.

Thanks in advance.

You might be onto an outside IR35 winner here, depending on how your accountant views it. The wording specifically states that you are on a fixed term contract (which really goes without saying if you are a business professional). HOwever, they have said it - and in writing too.

A fixed term contract is a contract of employment, whereby an employee is employed for a fixed length of time and has all the rights and responsibilities of being on the payroll. This is clearly not what you are meant to be - otherwise the other wording wouldn't be there, specifically stating that you cannot give notice. This is a non-starter for a contract of employment (of service, to a business, whereby you would insist on having 4 weeks if you had any sense and were sure you were inside IR35) because it bears no resemblance at all to being anything but a fudge to keep you outside of the parameters of employment.

All there time you have no notice and the wording is like this - I would think you are home and dry to being outside IR35 - simply because it is not implied, but specifically stated making your case easier to prove.

T