Terminating Contract Early

[GillsMan]

Sorry to clarify it says...
"The contractor is required to complete the minimum length of 180 days"

Have you worked at least 180 working days there?

[TheFaQQer]

Sorry to clarify it says...
"The contractor is required to complete the minimum length of 180 days"

Define "contractor"

[icemancomeths]

Have you worked at least 180 working days there?

No, I have worked 60 days and this is an extension.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Throwing a sickie to get out of your obligations is childish and pathetic, and massively cringe-worthy if you're purporting to operate as a business. But you're right, it's not fraud. Fraud is a crime. Throwing a sickie would be a contractual issue, but it's never going to go down the road of being considered a crime.

For those describing this as fraud, here is what fraud is: What is fraud? | Fraud | SFO - Serious Fraud Office Note that it's a type of criminal activity. Don't kid yourselves that this would ever be considered an actual crime.

You didn't read what I wrote properly. Anyone is entitled to breach a contract. What they aren't entitled to do is to evade the consequences with deception.

From your own link:

'abuse of position, or false representation, or prejudicing someone's rights for personal gain'.

Breaching by terminating early is a breach. Hiding that behind fake sickness is fraud - used to evade facing the consequences of choosing to break your contractual obligations, for your own personal gain - at the expense of your former client.

[GillsMan]

You didn't read what I wrote properly. Anyone is entitled to breach a contract. What they aren't entitled to do is to evade the consequences with deception.

From your own link:



Breaching by terminating early is a breach. Hiding that behind fake sickness is fraud - used to evade facing the consequences of choosing to break your contractual obligations, for your own personal gain - at the expense of your former client.

Yeah, because pulling a sickie is clearly a type of criminal activity. Genius.

[SpontaneousOrder]

So throwing a sickie is fraud now, I suppose you think not turning up to dentist appointments should be met with 100 lashes.

Let me explain it again in toddler terms:

If you are under no contractual obligation to to attend your appointment, then no.
If you are, but you meet the terms of any penalties mandated, then no.
If you are and you tell lies to avoid any mandated penalties, then you are committing fraud.

100 lashes seems disproportionate for a missed dentist appointment, but I wouldn't expect someone with no moral substance to be able to discern the difference anyway.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Yeah, because pulling a sickie is clearly a type of criminal activity. Genius.

See Howe v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.

[GillsMan]

See Howe v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.

Completely different from the scenario being discussed here. Completely different. That's about claiming sick pay. What we're discussing here is pulling a sickie instead of working the final days of your contract. Not acceptable, IMO, and a breach of contract, but unlikely to be considered fraud, i.e. a criminal act.

[BolshieBastard]

Ok well my contract says the following:

Terminating

The contractor must provide a minimum of 180 working days.

You're ****'d if you havent done this. Perhaps you should have read your contract better? I'd suggest if you did now leave they'd consider suing for breach and, I think they'd win if they followed it through.

As I said before, I'd have no problem leaving a contract for a better one but, it would have to be done within the T&C's of the contract.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Completely different from the scenario being discussed here. Completely different. That's about claiming sick pay. What we're discussing here is pulling a sickie instead of working the final days of your contract. Not acceptable, IMO, and a breach of contract, but unlikely to be considered fraud, i.e. a criminal act.

Well the only reason sick pay is an issue is because it costs the defrauded - just as terminating before a contract permits [likely] costs the client.

If deception to evade contractual obligations wasn't fraud, then no contracts would ever be enforceable. The principle is the same - it's just a matter of magnitude and whether it's worth anyone's time & effort to worry about it.

The salient point for me is that fraud exists as a concept in it's own right, outside of whatever particular legislation happens to be in enforcement at the time. I know that you actually agree with this, otherwise you wouldn't deem it as being unnacceptable - it would just otherwise be bad business.

Some frauds are more serious than others. That doesn't change the fact that the most minor fraud imaginable is still fraud.