Substitution contract clause - financially liable

[Spoiler]

talking tulipe - ignore

[northernladuk]

Why may you want to use a clause like this. Could you provide some context. Are you the consultancy or someone else?

I'm just confused as we don't have this so wondering why in your instance?

EDIT. Balls should have used the quote

[Spoiler]

Why may you want to use a clause like this. Could you provide some context. Are you the consultancy or someone else?

I'm just confused as we don't have this so wondering why in your instance?

EDIT. Balls should have used the quote

Ha ! Okay, so the recommendation was to include a subclause in the substitution section that states that you will be financially liable for all costs involved in the act, and is an important aspect of substitution.

Somebody missed some sub-clauses out on the revised contract - adding them back in made more sense to the revised clause.

[northernladuk]

Ha ! Okay, so the recommendation was to include a subclause in the substitution section that states that you will be financially liable for all costs involved in the act, and is an important aspect of substitution.

Somebody missed some sub-clauses out on the revised contract - adding them back in made more sense to the revised clause.

Hmm, never seen that before. That said it is a very common mistake people make thinking just sending a bod in on Monday after you've left on Friday is an acceptable solution.

There is a clause covering what you want on here if you are still after one.

https://www.qdoscontractor.com/docs/...d.pdf?sfvrsn=2

[malvolio]

The whole point of substitution is that you substitute the worker. The original contract between client and YourCo is still in force. So obviously you are financially responsible.

[Spoiler]

There is a clause covering what you want on here if you are still after one.

https://www.qdoscontractor.com/docs/...d.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Thanks for the pointer :-)