Clause in Experis contract

[Untouchable1]

Hi,

I've been sent a contract by Experis, with the following clause:


"Experis will not pay:
(a) for the Project Services that are not authorised, or paid for, or are disputed by the Client.
(b) for expenses incurred by the Company that are not authorised prior to them being incurred or are disputed in any way by the Client."

Is this fairly industry standard? Surely I need to negotiate this out of the contract?

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Untouchable1

[kaiser78]

Hi,

I've been sent a contract by Experis, with the following clause:


"Experis will not pay:
(a) for the Project Services that are not authorised, or paid for, or are disputed by the Client.
(b) for expenses incurred by the Company that are not authorised prior to them being incurred or are disputed in any way by the Client."

Is this fairly industry standard? Surely I need to negotiate this out of the contract?

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Untouchable1

This for sure - if you stay Opted In the agency has to be pay regardless if they have been paied by the client, but this clause would override whether you are Opted In or Out.

[northernladuk]

What Kaiser says but think what the clause is there for. It's to protect the agent in the event they don't get paid and can't pass the money on. Negotiating out means they get shafted by having to pay you when they don't get their money. Good luck getting that negotiated out.

[LondonManc]

If your contract is with the agency, why should it be your issue whether they get paid or not? I'd try and get something in that trumps this where an approved/signed timesheet has been submitted; the client has therefore approved the work and you should be paid for it.

[northernladuk]

If your contract is with the agency, why should it be your issue whether they get paid or not? I'd try and get something in that trumps this where an approved/signed timesheet has been submitted; the client has therefore approved the work and you should be paid for it.

Which Opting in would do.

I'd say it should be an issue due to client, agent, contractor model. It's just shifting money down the chain so can understand why they want to protect themselves. If I took on a sub I'd certainly want something similar in so I don't have to pass the money on if I didn't get it.

[LondonManc]

Which Opting in would do.

I'd say it should be an issue due to client, agent, contractor model. It's just shifting money down the chain so can understand why they want to protect themselves. If I took on a sub I'd certainly want something similar in so I don't have to pass the money on if I didn't get it.

Flip it around and if you're the sub, you'd want paying if you've done the work.

If I'm a paving specialist and have done a patio as part of an extension that a builder is doing, I'd want paying by the builder when I've done it. My contract is with the builder.

[SueEllen]

What are the payment terms?

If they have to pay you within 10 days of you sending an invoice then they are going to struggle to evoke the clause. If it's 30 days then negotiate it.