Referring to spouse in contract

[Jatra]

Hi All,

Back to contracting for the first time in years.... I've got something lined up but was surprised to see clauses in the contract under warranties such as:

"no-one other than the Consultant or their spouse influences or controls the way in which payments to the Consultant are made by the Supplier;

no-one other than Consultant or their spouse influences or controls the activities or finances of the Supplier;"


My spouse isn't a director of my ltd co, doesnt have any shares (yet), so I'm wondering if this is standard?


Additionally, whats the general feeling about liability insurance for IT consultants? Any recommednations?

Thanks,
Tim

[TykeMerc]

I've never seen that clause, but I'd not be comfortable with the wording of the Consultant either, that suggests it's a personal contract and not a business to business one. I think you would be wise to get the whole thing IR35 reviewed.

Liability insurances - I can't remember the last time I had a client that didn't require it. It's cheap to get anyway.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Consultant is surely YourCo? Is YourCo married?

[tractor]

.....

This is all down to lawyers scaremongering agencies over the changes to ITEPA this year regarding the perceived 'self-employment' loophole.

Given that agencies don't have a clue abou the law, they will always take a lawyers advice.

[Jatra]

I've never seen that clause, but I'd not be comfortable with the wording of the Consultant either, that suggests it's a personal contract and not a business to business one. I think you would be wise to get the whole thing IR35 reviewed.

Liability insurances - I can't remember the last time I had a client that didn't require it. It's cheap to get anyway.

Yup - will be getting it reviewed, but I've the option of a short term contract while Crunch take their 10 days to review.

Contract differentiates between supplier and consultant provided by supplier (with substitutability provision) but these clauses do seem a bit odd.

Consultant is surely YourCo? Is YourCo married?

If the company *is* married I'm a bit peeved I didnt get an invitation to the wedding ;-)

[northernladuk]

Yup - will be getting it reviewed, but I've the option of a short term contract while Crunch take their 10 days to review.

Contract differentiates between supplier and consultant provided by supplier (with substitutability provision) but these clauses do seem a bit odd.

If the company *is* married I'm a bit peeved I didnt get an invitation to the wedding ;-)

QDOS can turn it around in 24 hours for a fee and looking at that clause it will be money well spent!!! I have a feeling that won't be the only issue with that contract. They have turned around one of their free check you get with PI/PL as a favour but dunno what to do to get that. Maybe tell them NLUK sent you. Might give them a giggle I guess but wouldn't expect much else.

[TheFaQQer]

Tell the agent to take out all references to an unconnected third party, unless they can justify why it is in there.

When they can't justify it, change it.

[Taita]

Hi All,

Back to contracting for the first time in years.... I've got something lined up but was surprised to see clauses in the contract under warranties such as:

"no-one other than the Consultant or their spouse influences or controls the way in which payments to the Consultant are made by the Supplier;

no-one other than Consultant or their spouse influences or controls the activities or finances of the Supplier;"


My spouse isn't a director of my ltd co, doesnt have any shares (yet), so I'm wondering if this is standard?


Additionally, whats the general feeling about liability insurance for IT consultants? Any recommednations?

Thanks,
Tim

Wording makes no sense. Review essential IMHO

[Qdos Contractor]

Maybe tell them NLUK sent you. Might give them a giggle I guess but wouldn't expect much else.

I sincerely hope to witness the confusion of whoever answers that call.

[Qdos Contractor]

This is all down to lawyers scaremongering agencies over the changes to ITEPA this year regarding the perceived 'self-employment' loophole.

Could be that, or could well be MSC. Post MSC quite a few bizarre clauses along similar lines started to appear in some contracts.

Either way it's not brilliant. Not particularly indicative of a genuine business to business agreement. Obviously overall position depends on what else is in there; particularly substitution.