Immutable contracts - Agencies that will not allow modifications

[d000hg]

No they aren't.

What does the "Limited" in your company name mean

I think you've missed the point here. Ltd is not bullet-proof.

[cojak]

Yep, I have PII. However, if I accept a contract that places the insurer at more risk than was declared in my appliction it is null and void. I hate to think how many contractors are out there that have voided insurance because they didn't read the contract.

Unenforceable: That is a good word. However, you could lose your house and home simply arguing in court about the enforceability of a contract clause.

No, I was simply think of getting the clause removed with the emphasis on your PII, that's all.

[Wanderer]

What does the "Limited" in your company name mean

Not much if the contract states that the contractor will provide a personal guarantee...

[TransitTrucker]

The only issue there is of you warn the agency, they might get to the client first and tell them you aren't a good fit, are a trouble-maker, etc.


Can you post any sections that demonstrate the contract to be as bad as you say?

I am not sure if I dare do that as it may identify the agency.

[GillsMan]

They are not willing to spoil it as many contractors will sign up to them without question. If they don't they get someone else that will, no loss to them or the client. It isn't a fault. They have a contract that they have had checked by a lawyer (or believe they have) and they are not willing to change it which could introduce risk as they don't know enough about the changes. Agencies don't tend to have legal teams hence them being inflexible.

I do find it a little hard to believe that one contract can be guilty of all that if they do have the teams you mentioned though......

Exactly what are you wanting changing though? Is it something like notice or is it something IR35 related? One they are more likely to change than the other? WOuld be interesting to see what QDOS says as well.

I had that with an agency for one of my current clients. It was dreadful for a daily rate gig, but completely irrelevant for the fixed-priced proposal I'd managed to get the client to agree to. Bad grammar, typos, things that didn't make sense, you name it, it was there. I ended up successfully negotiating a complete re-write of the contract, having sent them a two page Word document, highlighting the clauses I couldn't agree to, why I couldn't agree, and what I wanted them changed to. Some of the clauses they agreed to amend or remove:

• A clause saying I couldn't tell the end client my rate (I'd already quoted my price to the client)
• Problematic RoS clause - I got them to remove the bit about agy/client needing to approve subs
• Clause stating I couldn't go direct for 12 months after the work - I got this down to 6 months
• Payment needs a Timesheet - I got them to agree that an email from client confirming payment was fine would be OK

Basically, they ended up completely re-writing their contract. In my favour.

[TransitTrucker]

Thinking out of the box . . .

Now here is a thought. I don't get many of those. If we are in the unfortunate circumstances of having to sign unreasonable contracts just to keep working is there a legal way of limiting our liability?

In my case, the contract says it can come after the contractor and his company. But, if the contractor and his company had no assets this would be futile. So, thinking out of the box, how could one arrange this legally?

[cojak]

Yep, I have PII. However, if I accept a contract that places the insurer at more risk than was declared in my appliction it is null and void. I hate to think how many contractors are out there that have voided insurance because they didn't read the contract.

Unenforceable: That is a good word. However, you could lose your house and home simply arguing in court about the enforceability of a contract clause.

You've already answered that one...

[NotAllThere]

I know one chap who received the agents contract, all nicely signed in advance, awaiting his signature. He scanned it, modified the clauses he didn't like, printed it off again, and signed.

I'm not entirely sure of the legality of that one...

However, I have crossed out and amended clauses I didn't like, initialled and dated, signed the bottom, took a copy and then sent the contract back. No-one complained (or probably even noticed).

There are many agencies who will say that everyone accepts the contract, you're the only one to ever ask for changes, their legal department won't wear it, etc. etc. The probability their lying is high. No-one turns down a few £10k income when it can be had by a little compromise. Further, once you've got the offer, it really is far too much work, even if the agency has a backup ready and willing to start, to go through the whole process again.

I'd call their bluff.

And.... I do currently hold a specially-modified-for-me contract with Hays. Just not Hays UK...

[northernladuk]

I know one chap who received the agents contract, all nicely signed in advance, awaiting his signature. He scanned it, modified the clauses he didn't like, printed it off again, and signed.

I'm not entirely sure of the legality of that one...

However, I have crossed out and amended clauses I didn't like, initialled and dated, signed the bottom, took a copy and then sent the contract back. No-one complained (or probably even noticed).

I would be interested to know but I thought for a contract to be valid changes must be agreed by both parties. Changes to an existing document should be initialed at the change and then signed and submitted at which point the other party will also initial the change to confirm. I don't think making a change to a signed document without raising it with the other party is valid.

You could try argue you made the change it is up to the other guy to spot it and argue but I don't think this will work. He signed a copy, you changed it. You would expect there should be some onus on you to make the other person aware there are changes and get him to agree to the changes. Sliding them past by signing and not saying anything won't be looked on favourably at court I am sure.

But then there is the complexity of implied. The fact he let you start and paid you could mean he has agreed. No wonder lawers make a mint. 3 paragraphs in and my brain hurts.

[Wanderer]

I know one chap who received the agents contract, all nicely signed in advance, awaiting his signature. He scanned it, modified the clauses he didn't like, printed it off again, and signed.

I'm not entirely sure of the legality of that one...

Changes like that probably won't work in my opinion.

If someone gives you a printed and signed contract and you modify it, sign it and return it then they would have to counter sign your changes for it to be valid. If they just looked at your signature and filed it away then you have no way of proving that they accepted your changes.

However, if you receive an unsigned contact you could take this an an invitation to negotiate. You could modify, sign and return the contract for them to review and accept. If they subsequently sign it then it could be seen as a valid variation accepted by both parties.

A lot of contracts that I see have a clause saying they don't permit handwritten modifications to the printed document and and any modifications would require that the contract was amended and re-printed.