MOO, Direction, Substitution - Quick feedback

[scooby]

True, but (a) the contract should be between YourCo and the Client as a contract for services and notwith a named individual as a contract of service and (b) such acceptance of a substitute shall not be unreasonably withheld, i.e. you can't refuse him just because he isn't Mr Ed if he has all the same abilitties and experience as Mr Ed.

I've a feeling that leading this horse to water, and getting the money i want to make it worth it, may be just be too much for this client...

[Andrew at Boox]

I agree

MOO and D&C are a bit moot since they have made it a contract of service by naming the worker explicitly without reference to their intermediary. If you're worried about IR35, walk away, there's no way you can defend your position given the quoted clauses.

For the record, the first one isn't MOO but is too over-restrictive to be acceptable for RoS. The remainder are individually pointers towards D&C but taken as a whole - and bearing in mind this is probably the actuality of the engagement - you've got no chance.

I couldn't agree more. This substitution clause really does not count in your favour.

My advice is the same as most on this post - negotiate a better IR35 friendly contract.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Agree with the panel on status but disagree with the remedy.

"The Consultant to be provided for this work shall be John Smith. AComp reserve the right to terminate this Agreement if the Supplier does not provide the services of John Smith or provide an alternative who, at AComp's sole discretion, does not meet its needs"

The above clause was included in the contract because that is what client co wants to happen - the contract could be re-written to say "We don't care who does the work as long as Scooby thinks they're great because we love Scooby" but it wouldn't be worth the paper its written on if the reality of the situation is that it's Scooby or no-one. The way round it would be to explain Mal's Mr Ed analogy to them and hope that they get it

[TheFaQQer]

I couldn't agree more. This substitution clause really does not count in your favour.

My advice is the same as most on this post - negotiate a better IR35 friendly contract.

Contract is irrelevant if the working practices are different. And they almost certainly will be, judging by the wording of the contract at the moment.

[scooby]

Contract is irrelevant if the working practices are different. And they almost certainly will be, judging by the wording of the contract at the moment.

Turns out the working practices are very different to the wording... They have changed it dramatically and I've documented the intention that we agreed so a legal bod can word it.

It's all unlikely to get that far, money is pants!