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

[Spacecadet]

Nice to see the regulars simply piling on the attack rather than trying to be a bit more constructive about this
Seriously, would it be so difficult to drop the "party line" for once and have a look at a different way of doing things.

KittyCat: What I'd like to know is... How much time (hours/days) have you spent on this and what is your expected return should you win, and what costs are you exposing yourself to should you lose.

[cojak]

I say good luck to kitty cat.

She's done this before and won, I'm not sure I'd do it as I don't think the effort balances the recompense, but that's just my opinion.

[jmo21]

So there is an instant termination clause but the OP says this isn't fair, as that denies his Ltd the chance to fix or deny whatever reason they give for termination?

And there is no MOO clause which means he expects paid for the notice and thinks the agency has been paid notice money.

I've never really thought about this one before but what is there usually in place that means an agency has to pass notice money down the chain? My guess is nothing.

[Wanderer]

• The agency have not confirmed or denied that they received money for the notice period (post 43)

Yes indeed. Who's to say that the agency didn't get paid off for the 4 weeks notice by the client and they are withholding this?

"Just because something isn't ethical, it doesn't make it illegal" is absolutely right. What's "fair" or "ethical" has little to do with what's actually "legal".

KittyCat, try not to get into too much of a slanging match here but rest assured that we watch your case with great interest and would be very interested to see how it all turns out. Good luck.

[centurian]

I've never really thought about this one before but what is there usually in place that means an agency has to pass notice money down the chain? My guess is nothing.

I guess it depends on whether you consider your arrangement is one of an agency temp - or that of a B2B arrangement with the agency.

If it's the former, then there are definately laws to prohibit this.

Also if the OP opted in (it looks like he/she did), then that particuar Act would probably cover them in this respect.

But if it is a pure B2B arrangement, then there is nothing to prevent this. If the upper contract states that ClientCo must pay Agency, but the end contract states that Agency need not pay LtdCo - then that's it.

Farmers have contracts with distributors who have contracts with supermarkets. If a farmer is in dispute with their distributor, it is purely the terms of their contract that matters. They can't argue that simply because Tesco's etc. have paid the distributor, that that money must automatically get passed down to them - unless such terms are explicity mentioned in their contract.

It cuts to the fundamental point of whether the agency is merely an agent in a transaction, or your contractural customer.

[TheFaQQer]

I guess it depends on whether you consider your arrangement is one of an agency temp - or that of a B2B arrangement with the agency.

If it's the former, then there are definately laws to prohibit this.

Also if the OP opted in (it looks like he/she did), then that particuar Act would probably cover them in this respect.

The regulations prevent an agency from keeping money that is due to the supplier for work that they have done. If they did no work, but the agency got the notice period paid, then I'd guess that the letter of the regulation (although perhaps not the spirit) means that the agency can keep the money.

But if it is a pure B2B arrangement, then there is nothing to prevent this. If the upper contract states that ClientCo must pay Agency, but the end contract states that Agency need not pay LtdCo - then that's it.

I agree. Whether it is common for an agency to get paid the notice period, I don't know (I don't think it's likely, to be honest). The agency getting paid the notice period and keeping the money, I suspect, is rarer still, but that's just my gut feeling rather than any evidence-based logic.

[Wanderer]

The regulations prevent an agency from keeping money that is due to the supplier for work that they have done. If they did no work, but the agency got the notice period paid, then I'd guess that the letter of the regulation (although perhaps not the spirit) means that the agency can keep the money.

No one except the agency and the client know what happened to Kitty but imagine the scenario where client terminates the contract, pays the agency notice and the agency terminates the contractor without notice saying the client terminated. How is the contractor going to verify that?

Withholding payment in this situation is illegal under the agency conduct regulations and probably a breach of contract too because the contract wasn't terminated forthwith as the agency suggests.

[d000hg]

Because there was a chance to negotiate the contract, and the OP didn't take it, Unfair Contract Terms Act is irrelevant

Is that definite, I thought measures were in place to protect against that? Or maybe those refer only to employment law?

[northernladuk]

Is that definite, I thought measures were in place to protect against that? Or maybe those refer only to employment law?

This is all well and good but only one other poster has touched on what I think will happen. It comes down to who can be bothered to chase this the furthest and the cost/effort both parties can live with.

IMO in this case the OP is so hell bent on a win that it just won't be worth going to court and will bung the OP a couple of grand just to go away whether they would have won in court or not.

[craig1]

Is that definite, I thought measures were in place to protect against that? Or maybe those refer only to employment law?

Individuals get protection from companies in contracts as companies are deemed to have a high and often unchallengeable level of dominance and control over how contracts are written in B2C relationships.

B2B relationships are treated as negotiated between equals unless there is clear proof of intention to deceive the other party into signing an unfair contract, e.g. if I sign a clause that commits me to pay a penalty if a defined but unlikely incident occurs and the other party has insider knowledge that the incident will definitely happen then I have a case to argue that the clause is unfair due to deception. If a B2B clause is plainly written in a way that a competent company that is properly advised would understand then it's presumed to be fair, if I miss a seriously negative clause then that's entirely my problem as I should have taken proper advice.