18 month gig

[kevpuk]

Send in a sub for the last 17.5 months?

[northernladuk]

for a contract to be legal it has to be fair and balanced.
that's contract law 101

Any challenge to a lopsided contract would likely be upheld in a court.
That said, if you sign it and are aware of the content... caveat emptor.

Possibly true but what has this got to do with this case? Not being able to give notice does not make it lop sided. You might be able to argue the case in 18 months that's a bit steep but generally no notice periods only become unfair in contracts without and end date. You are in for a tricky fight using 18 months as the get out.

And further to that no notice is preferred from an IR35 perspective. Below is an article about no notice from Roger Sinclair and another about preferring no notice for IR35 protection. Both would indicate that having no notice is a benefit, not a legal issue.

Terminating a contract when you have no termination or notice clause

Contracting termination clauses that avoid IR35 risk

I read the OP as zero notice rather than unable to serve notice. in the latter case would that not be seen as a business to business contract rather than any kind of FTC? as the supplier is locked in and cant operate like an employee at all?

Not sure where you get that. He clearly states...

no notice period on contractor side

and as the link says above yes you are right.

[psychocandy]

There is no requirement whatsoever for notice to be mutual. When I hired contractors, I preferred to be able to get rid of them with no notice, yet for them to be unable to give me notice.

As do a lot of clients these days...

[psychocandy]

for a contract to be legal it has to be fair and balanced.
that's contract law 101

Any challenge to a lopsided contract would likely be upheld in a court.
That said, if you sign it and are aware of the content... caveat emptor.

I read the OP as zero notice rather than unable to serve notice. in the latter case would that not be seen as a business to business contract rather than any kind of FTC? as the supplier is locked in and cant operate like an employee at all?

Fairly common for 3 monthers you will find. Client can give a week, you have no notice period i.e. gottta stay.

[unixman]

The 18 months is fine but not the lack of notice. I would ask why the no-notice is required. If they don't provide a good explanation, don't sign.

[psychocandy]

The 18 months is fine but not the lack of notice. I would ask why the no-notice is required. If they don't provide a good explanation, don't sign.

Well, I think we all know the answer will be - we need someone to see the project through and don't want to source someone else half way through.

And of course, if you ask why there's no notice, it'll be why? Would you not be willing to see it through then? And then they'll start twitching and looking at someone who doesn't ask that question....

But of course, they'll want to keep their notice in just in case the project gets canned.


What clients I think sometimes fail to realise is this sort of thing is going to put people off. They probably think "we're offering 18 months - thats going to impress people" but in reality we all know the 18 month is irrelevant if the client has a notice period. The fact that the contractor is tied to 18 months is going to be a negative thing.

Also, contract is in Wales. Rate is decent enough but not superb. Can't see many people saying yes I'll do mon-fri in wales for the next 18 month knowing theres no escape if its tulipe. (Similarly I wouldn sign up for 18 months in london - in case it just doesnt work out).

Also, tts going to run past April 2016 and all the changes that entails. So there's going to be no chance to negotiate a rise at all. What you sign at the start is good for 18 months...

And of course the expenses - surely no-one is likely to take this with the uncertainty with the expenses changes if they know its going to be a mon-fri hotel gig.

Could get to April 2016, find out its tulipe, you hate being in wales, the dividend tax means you've lost a lost of income, you can't even claim for the hotel so you're well out of pocket but you're stuck for another 12 months.

[BolshieBastard]

Has come up. Not so sure about the 18 month thing I must admit...

I'm sure we've all had 3 monthers where they'd said 3-6 months max and then been there years. But not sure about kicking off with 18 months to start with.

Yes it shows intend/budget from client for NOW but things change. You can bet a pound to a pinch of tulip that they will have a notice period in there so the 18 month is hardly providing anything at all.

In fact, I'd say its probably a disadvantage because we'll see if they want an 18 month commitment with no notice period on contractor side. Agent at the moment is indicating this.

3 months I have no problem with. If it turns out to be a dogs dinner you can choose not to renew. But 18 months where you can't leave but they can can you doesnt sound too great to me.

Rate is not brilliant and, of course, runs over April 2016 when, as we all know, things change, so there is no chance for an increase to take into account.

Anything else I've forgotten?

You're definitely a glass half empty person, arent you?

[wantacontract]

The 18 months is fine but not the lack of notice. I would ask why the no-notice is required. If they don't provide a good explanation, don't sign.

second that, I've always negotiated notice on my part also, no notice is not acceptable to me....

[LondonManc]

Negotiate a 3-month notice, it's virtually still a handcuff as you won't be able to jump ship for the next gig but there's light at the end of the tunnel if it proves to be a contract from hell come February.

[psychocandy]

second that, I've always negotiated notice on my part also, no notice is not acceptable to me....

Seems to be something that a lot of clients are not keen. Doesnt bother me for a 3 monther.