**termination with no notice - breach of contract**court case *help needed*

[Mister Clark]

The agency have submitted no witness statements?
Mine are all done (as contractor & as Director).

The directions state if they're not submitted by the deadline then either the claimant or defendant can apply for judgement on the basis on no case/defence etc - cant remember the actual wording.

On another note - when looking back at the original offer & documents from the agency - the original t&c's dont contain the clause that the agency is relying on.

Neither does the supplier agreement with the client & agency. This was when the contract was offered & accepted - the tiny print t&c's were sent after I had started at the client site. The agency made no point of the change in the t&c's (like I say very tiny print).

Do you think the agency has given up?

Maybe they are going under and don't care.

[blacjac]

the tiny print t&c's were sent after I had started at the client site. The agency made no point of the change in the t&c's (like I say very tiny print).

Doesn't matter.

If they sent them to you and you carried on working and invoicing, then you have accepted them.
Its not the agency's fault if you didn't bother to read them.

[d000hg]

Picking up another point, PCG won't touch this with a bargepole, on the facts presented to date, since the only likely outcome is to make clients more averse to using contractors that they can't get rid of without incurring significnat costs, which is not why they hrire them in the first place.

I dont even know who pcg are

Bit of a slip there old bean.

Is this "everyone is wrong except me" thread reminding anyone else of a certain someone in General?

[TheFaQQer]

Bit of a slip there old bean.

Is this "everyone is wrong except me" thread reminding anyone else of a certain someone in General?

It's not a slip - it's just not using the quote button properly. The first one is a direct quote from Malvolio - IIRC there is some KittyCat comment after Mal's bit.

As with many things in this thread, it's not the most straightforward post to read.

[d000hg]

It's not a slip - it's just not using the quote button properly. The first one is a direct quote from Malvolio - IIRC there is some KittyCat comment after Mal's bit.

As with many things in this thread, it's not the most straightforward post to read.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. In that case I'll revert to my position "if KK is unable to find out what PCG is, are they really advised to represent themself?!"

[RobertRice]

[QUOTE=d000hg;1438442]KK QUOTE]

KC

[KittyCat]

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. In that case I'll revert to my position "if KK is unable to find out what PCG is, are they really advised to represent themself?!"

I did look up PCG - yep could get - but not relevant now as the horse has already bolted!

I doubt the agency going under - more likely their buying up (more) smaller agencies!

The UCTA states about slipping in different terms with tiny print - it has to be made clear if there is a fundamental change to the contract - anyway its irrelevant cos the term is'nt legal & they cant even prove the clause was invoked even 'if' it was.

When I get my fat cheque I'll send a e-postcard from my holiday

[cojak]

Bit of a slip there old bean.

Is this "everyone is wrong except me" thread reminding anyone else of a certain someone in General?

Yes it is.

I now think kittycat is a sockie and might lock this thread.

[prozak]

Yes it is.

I now think kittycat is a sockie and might lock this thread.

NOOOOOO!

Play Nice.

No way is she a sockpuppet. No one could make this tulip up.

[craig1]

Yes it is.

I now think kittycat is a sockie and might lock this thread.

I'm not so sure, I think he/she/it is one of life's "special" children. The type that thinks that speaking loudly and clearly in English to furrin people can over-ride any language difficulty.

I do thoroughly regret the advice I gave in the pages above, I think I wasted far too much of my time on it.