Breach of Contract

[fzbucks]

Disagree. I had the reverse situation - contract with an outsource consultancy then within a month joined their end client. Agency claimed I'd btroken the handcuff, consultancy argued that I had no previous contract with the end client so go away.

It is not easy to argue on a level palaying field, and it will help to get your current and previous clients on side, but they have a very weak case. Do not offer to buy anything out, why should you, you havn't broken any contractual agreements, unless they are trying to claim the outsourcer is a connected company or subsidiary of the client, and I suspect the relevant Boards will have something to say about that.

They pretty much are concluding that the outsourcer is an associated company - the contract is worded as below:

Throughout the Assignment Period and for a period of 4 months afterwards the Contractor will not and will procure that the Personnel will not provide services similar to the Services or any information technology related services in any capacity either directly or indirectly to the Client (or to any of the Client’s subsidiary or associate companies in respect of which it provided Services during the Assignment Period), other than with the written consent of the Company.

I'm not into legal lingo but could I argue that this is to wide to be enforced?

[fzbucks]

You are being too nice.

You should say "Go on then - sue". 99 times out of 100, that's the last you'll hear of it. They know you are a soft touch and they are using your own fear against you.

Most of the times these things don't stand up in court anyway and I would argue that as they couldnt have placed you themselves it's effectively restraint of trade.

I would tell them to take a running jump.

That is pretty much how I want to go with this, it's just that small chance that the judge on the day would side with them, then I am left with their legal costs and my own.

[Goya]

They pretty much are concluding that the outsourcer is an associated company - the contract is worded as below:

Throughout the Assignment Period and for a period of 4 months afterwards the Contractor will not and will procure that the Personnel will not provide services similar to the Services or any information technology related services in any capacity either directly or indirectly to the Client (or to any of the Client’s subsidiary or associate companies in respect of which it provided Services during the Assignment Period), other than with the written consent of the Company.

I'm not into legal lingo but could I argue that this is to wide to be enforced?

It's not CP, is it?

[fzbucks]

It's not CP, is it?

How did you guess? you don't work for them do you?

[PrinceNamor]

How did you guess? you don't work for them do you?

If it is CP tell em to feck off. Last year I went for a contract through them,got the gig, signed contracts. Two days before I was due to start I had a call form CP saying that they couldn't agree terms with the client and the contract had fallen through. I had a contact in another agency who could agree terms so worked for the client through them instead. When CP got wind of this they threatened me with legal action saying that as I had signed their contract I couldn't work for the client through another agency. Told them to go ahead and take legal action and guess what...never heard another thing about it. Grow a backbone and tell em to feck right off.

[Goya]

How did you guess? you don't work for them do you?

Nope, I have foolishly contracted through them once before (& once only!). Recognized the text.

Don't suppose you were contracting at a certain bank? I'd would bring a little joy to know they have been chucked out as a preferred supplier!

[malvolio]

It's their style. They would rather have put 50-odd contractors on the bench than allow them to continue at a client site with another agency on renewal, when they lost their place on the PSL. They treat us as either commodities or their personal resource - not sure which is worse, but I won't ever work with them again anyway.

Screw 'em. See them in court. If they have no commercial interst, they will fail the test of reasonableness which the court will apply.

[fzbucks]

If it is CP tell em to feck off. Last year I went for a contract through them,got the gig, signed contracts. Two days before I was due to start I had a call form CP saying that they couldn't agree terms with the client and the contract had fallen through. I had a contact in another agency who could agree terms so worked for the client through them instead. When CP got wind of this they threatened me with legal action saying that as I had signed their contract I couldn't work for the client through another agency. Told them to go ahead and take legal action and guess what...never heard another thing about it. Grow a backbone and tell em to feck right off.

So far that's what I've done, it's been over two weeks now and they are still adament that they are pursuing this as far as they need to go - they are a little ticked off as I believe a few contractors have left them as they are no longer an approved supplier to the original client - just asking questions as I'm not into the world of legal wrangling and just wanted any advice from any contractors who have had similar issues, as it currently stands they still want to come in on the current contract with the agency I'm with now to earn more money off me and have said they wont accept a buy out based on 4 months worth of the margin they earned.

What I was interested in is how the wording on the clause would be interpreted legally as it seems to cover a wide spectrum and I was hoping someone could definitively say that it would be deemed as a restraint of trade

[fzbucks]

Nope, I have foolishly contracted through them once before (& once only!). Recognized the text.

Don't suppose you were contracting at a certain bank? I'd would bring a little joy to know they have been chucked out as a preferred supplier!

No not a bank but guess that means they have lost another client in another field!

[fzbucks]

It's their style. They would rather have put 50-odd contractors on the bench than allow them to continue at a client site with another agency on renewal, when they lost their place on the PSL. They treat us as either commodities or their personal resource - not sure which is worse, but I won't ever work with them again anyway.

Screw 'em. See them in court. If they have no commercial interst, they will fail the test of reasonableness which the court will apply.

Thanks - I think they should come with a government warning similar to that on cigarettes

Working with 'X'AGENCY can seriously damage your earning potential in the future

I am still early in my contracting career and will put all this down to experience and never be so naive in the future.