Fixing bugs AFTER end of contract???

[Steelman]

Why worry? It doesn't say how quickly you need to fix them? Is it really such a drain to fix one defect per week and tell them you spent the rest of the time analysing it?

Trying to be clever. Play them at their own game. Can you imagine them explaining to the shareholders why the system doesn't work as an ex contractor is taking his time doing free fixing?

Now MTFU and get on with it. There's benched contractors that read this forum would jump into your shoes.

HTH

Fair strategy, I did notice there was no timescale stipulated so this gave me some comfort. I guess a frustrating job with numpties is better than no job at all...

[Steelman]

They can argue it in court but as long as you are intelligent enough to document everything especially where the "bugs' aren't clear, then they won't get very far.

Had another thought - will try to get them to sign a 'Completion of Services' doc at contract end. Will only serve to bolster my legal position if they sign. Can't hurt....

[psychocandy]

Wouldnt go near something like this.

How many times have you been at client site and they've blamed the last contractor or last permie for something. Im sorry I can imagine what would be happening.

Manager: So whys this not working right?
Permie: Its that contractor who left last weeks fault.
MAnager: Right his contract said hes got to fix this.

And so on and so on....

[northernladuk]

Wouldnt go near something like this.

How many times have you been at client site and they've blamed the last contractor or last permie for something. Im sorry I can imagine what would be happening.

Manager: So whys this not working right?
Permie: Its that contractor who left last weeks fault.
MAnager: Right his contract said hes got to fix this.

And so on and so on....

But it's a great pointer to being outside IR35 and am sure many contracts have clauses similar to this in. All mine have and it hasn't made any difference. A vast majority of client managers haven't got a clue this is in the contract and are just not in the mindset to invoke it. The logistics of it are pretty unworkable anyway and this scenario just can't apply 99% of the time.

Sign the contract and just get on with it. No way would anyone dump most standard bum on seats gigs for clauses like this.

If you were offering a service or piece of functionality by yourself I might worry, but not for most types of gigs.

[BlasterBates]

I don't see this as a problem.

Actually although you could potentially blame the contractor for all issues. Once the problem has been identified, then in the source control system, which everyone uses these days, you can actually identify who caused the bug, and bill if it wasn't you

I would not worry about it.

Only if there was no source control would I not accept it.

The onus is on the client to prove that the contractor caused the issue, and the downside of blaming the contractor for all their issues is a huge bill.

I don't see this clause as a way to get free work done they're just covering themselves for the case where there is a really nasty bug, and the contractor is the only one who can sort this out quickly. I would therefore only see this as an exceptional case.

[GlenW]

If it happens just say you'll fix and send in a bob substitute. You do have a substitution clause in your contract don't you? Then the client will back down and say it doesn't matter.

[BolshieBastard]

But it's a great pointer to being outside IR35 and am sure many contracts have clauses similar to this in. All mine have and it hasn't made any difference. A vast majority of client managers haven't got a clue this is in the contract and are just not in the mindset to invoke it. The logistics of it are pretty unworkable anyway and this scenario just can't apply 99% of the time.

Sign the contract and just get on with it. No way would anyone dump most standard bum on seats gigs for clauses like this.

If you were offering a service or piece of functionality by yourself I might worry, but not for most types of gigs.

I was wondering why a contractor with this clause in their contract and a good IR35 exempt pointer, more so if he does get called back, is now trying to negate it?

Surely when you warrant your work you dont just warrant it for the time you're on site or 4 weeks after you left? I agree open ended is a no goer too.

[TheFaQQer]

But it's a great pointer to being outside IR35 and am sure many contracts have clauses similar to this in. All mine have and it hasn't made any difference. A vast majority of client managers haven't got a clue this is in the contract and are just not in the mindset to invoke it. The logistics of it are pretty unworkable anyway and this scenario just can't apply 99% of the time.

Sign the contract and just get on with it. No way would anyone dump most standard bum on seats gigs for clauses like this.

If you were offering a service or piece of functionality by yourself I might worry, but not for most types of gigs.

I did a project once that was primarily done by contractors. The client eventually sold the contract to Fujitsu on a fixed price basis, but more than the contractors would charge - the reason being that Fujitsu had "skin in the game"(tm)

ie. When it all went wrong, they knew there was no point in going after the contractors, but they'd take on Fujitsu since they were in charge. The fact that it cost more was acknowledged by everyone that this was the cost of that liability - and Fujitsu kept most of the contractors on anyway.

So, even though the client knew we all had clauses like this one, they never intended to enforce them.