Accepting an Offer by Email

[mike1227]

Does anyone know if accepting an offer of a contract by email means there is no going back? I've accepted an offer by email, even though I don't have a written contract yet (not even a soft copy).

With hindsight I think I should have accepted "subject to the Ts and Cs and receipt of a written contract." But then how was I to know I would get a better contract offered by a different agent one hour later!!!

[Badger]

Resend the email stating something like, 'Further to my previous email my acceptance of the offer is subject to the contracts Ts & Cs passing an independant IR35 contract check and is therefore only accepted in principle' etc etc.

[TheFaQQer]

If you've accepted, then you've accepted. End of story.

[TheFaQQer]

Resend the email stating something like, 'Further to my previous email my acceptance of the offer is subject to the contracts Ts & Cs passing an independant IR35 contract check and is therefore only accepted in principle' etc etc.

Good idea - but spell independent correctly

[deckster]

If you've accepted, then you've accepted. End of story.

Rubbish. How can you be held to a contract that you've not even seen? And in this case it's not even clear what legally constitutes 'acceptance' anyway.

I'd be straight with the agent. Say that you've had a better offer and is there anything he can do to sweeten his...at the very worst he'll tell you to get stuffed, which is what you wanted in the first place

[TheFaQQer]

Rubbish. How can you be held to a contract that you've not even seen? And in this case it's not even clear what legally constitutes 'acceptance' anyway.

I'd be straight with the agent. Say that you've had a better offer and is there anything he can do to sweeten his...at the very worst he'll tell you to get stuffed, which is what you wanted in the first place

If you put something in writing that says that you are accepting a contract, and you haven't seen the contract, then that is unlucky.

"How can you be held to a contract that you've not even seen?" - the same way that you can be caught under IR35 because of terms in the contract between client and agent that you have never seen.

The precedent for acceptance of a contract via email is well known.

[BolshieBastard]

If you put something in writing that says that you are accepting a contract, and you haven't seen the contract, then that is unlucky.

"How can you be held to a contract that you've not even seen?" - the same way that you can be caught under IR35 because of terms in the contract between client and agent that you have never seen.

The precedent for acceptance of a contract via email is well known.

Rubbish. Im with deckster on this. Since the T&C's between the ltd co and agent havent been seen, they cant be upheld. For all he knows, the contract could say the Ltd co will work for free seeing as any rate would only be have been talked about between the agent and Ltd co.

IR35 is entirely different because there are generally 2 distinct contracts between the client and agent, agent and ltd co. HMRC then argue the actual working practices are what constitutes IR35 caught, not the contracts.

[Badger]

Good idea - but spell independent correctly

Shockingly bad of me. And I missed the apostrophe from 'contract's'

Will I ever learn...

[TheFaQQer]

Rubbish. Im with deckster on this. Since the T&C's between the ltd co and agent havent been seen, they cant be upheld. For all he knows, the contract could say the Ltd co will work for free seeing as any rate would only be have been talked about between the agent and Ltd co.

IR35 is entirely different because there are generally 2 distinct contracts between the client and agent, agent and ltd co. HMRC then argue the actual working practices are what constitutes IR35 caught, not the contracts.

You may well be right. I think that any court would take the "I accept the contract" as an implied contract exists between two parties, the main clauses of which can be deduced from the discussions that have already taken place. This would be more likely to be inferred if the OP has worked through the agency before, since they would be (or could be reasonably expected to be) familiar with the terms and conditions.

It's been a long time since I studied law, though.

[expat]

If you've accepted, then you've accepted. End of story.

Why are you presumed to have accepted subject to their T&Cs rather than accepted subject to your T&Cs?