Agency have put wrong daily rate on contract and have only just noticed...2 months in

[chickenlegs]

They can terminate the contract.

True, it would be better agree to a new contract with rate x on it *without prejudice* to the previous contract at rate y in order to preserve the gig. And dicker about the difference between y and x after.

Although if the end client is happy with cotractmonkey, they'd be pretty upset if the agent terminated. Agent has even more money to lose by terminating.

[perplexed]

So you KNEW the contract was wrong. You KNEW they were paying the wrong amount and (I presume) you therefore WILFULLY invoiced the wrong amount.

Option 2 is your most favourable outcome but, as the error is just as much yours as it is theirs, then Option 1 is fairest. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

Option 3 is just pathetic given that you willingly creamed the money off them and now think it's their fault. Nice attitude.

Option 4 is only achievable without a handcuff clause.

I wouldn't say he made a mistake.

Agency made a mistake in putting wrong rate down. He admits he knew that, wanted to see where it would go. There was no mistake on his part, he deliberately and cynically chanced it to his own benefit - and you can bet if the mistake had been the other way round, he'd be on here complaining and wanting to know how to get his money.

End of the day, you spot something wrong in a contract - rate wrong, dates wrong, suspect clauses - you do the PROFESSIONAL thing you'd expect someone running a business to do, raise the issue and get it corrected. You deliberately chose not to do so.

Your business, you do what you want. I'd have corrected the problem at the earliest opportunity, certainly wouldn't have raised invoices knowing it was the wrong amount. Only you can decide what you want to do.

[northernladuk]

Personally, I don't think the agency has a leg to stand on. Rate y was in the contract AND they've been paying rate y. I take it rate y is on your invoices too, so plenty of opportunity to spot the error earlier. If rate x was on the contract, then it would be a different.

Do you have any free legal or contract advice options avaluable to you, maybe through professional insurances? I'd want to know for sure where I stood legally.

I'd be trying very hard for option 2, followed by option 1.5 as others have suggested if you want to be nice.

Reading around I'm starting to think this is not true now. According to sites written by clever people this appears to be a unilateral mistake. According to this site...

Unilateral Mistakes in a Contract | LegalMatch Law Library

What Are the Effects of a Unilateral Mistake?
If a unilateral mistake occurs during the contracting process, it could affect the outcome of the contract. It is unfair if one party understands the contract while the other party does not- therefore a court will usually issue one of two remedies to correct the unilateral mistake:

Rescission: Contract rescission is where the contract is completely cancelled and the parties restored to their position before the contract was entered into. Rescission is only available if the non-mistaken party knows or should have known about the unilateral mistake.
Reformation: Contract reformation is where the written agreement is changed to reflect the parties’ original understanding. Reformation is granted only if one party was not aware that the writing does not conform to the actual agreement.

It would appear from that the OP could lose the lot. It's complex and taking it to this level should be avoided at all costs, no one comes out well from it, but it would appear the OP knowing there has been a mistake in the contract that didn't reflect what was agreed and him trying to profit from it put's him at risk.

So I'd say the agent does have a leg to stand on... but as I said, this is irrelevant. There is no way it needs to go this far.

[perplexed]

Reading around I'm starting to think this is not true now. According to sites written by clever people this appears to be a unilateral mistake. According to this site...

Unilateral Mistakes in a Contract | LegalMatch Law Library



It would appear from that the OP could lose the lot. It's complex and taking it to this level should be avoided at all costs, no one comes out well from it, but it would appear the OP knowing there has been a mistake in the contract that didn't reflect what was agreed and him trying to profit from it put's him at risk.

So I'd say the agent does have a leg to stand on... but as I said, this is irrelevant. There is no way it needs to go this far.

No way it should ever get to court. That is the worst case scenario. Agency would have very good case and knowing what the case would be about, the end client would almost certainly walk contractor off - how could they trust him?

I'd not have got into this state, but I'd repay the excess money.

[uk contractor]

This all the way its £4K the agency made a genuine mistake. Ask them how much they want back if they say all of it then unless your prepared to give them their requested money back be prepared to be replaced in a few days. The agency will just tell the client what happened and when that happens the client will most likely tell the agency to find someone cheaper so they get a better deal overall by reducing agency margin as they now have a lot of leverage. The agency will not want to upset the client so will agree to place someone on a lower rate to claw back some of their losses.

[chickenlegs]

Reading around I'm starting to think this is not true now. According to sites written by clever people this appears to be a unilateral mistake. According to this site...

Unilateral Mistakes in a Contract | LegalMatch Law Library


It would appear from that the OP could lose the lot. It's complex and taking it to this level should be avoided at all costs, no one comes out well from it, but it would appear the OP knowing there has been a mistake in the contract that didn't reflect what was agreed and him trying to profit from it put's him at risk.

So I'd say the agent does have a leg to stand on... but as I said, this is irrelevant. There is no way it needs to go this far.

Interesting. I'm no legal beagle, but I do think the fact that the agency has paid that amount has a bearing. If goods are advertised at the wrong price, purchased, and physically obtained, then the incorrect price is legally binding. Not sure if the same applies to services, or if the fact that the contract is not complete would also have bearing.

I'm in no way suggesting this should reach court level of seriousness.

I would however take full advantage of free legal advice to see how strong my negotiating hand was, before opening my mouth, IF taking the stance of wanting to keep some of that money.

It's a very interesting topic!

[northernladuk]

Interesting. I'm no legal beagle, but I do think the fact that the agency has paid that amount has a bearing. If goods are advertised at the wrong price, purchased, and physically obtained, then the incorrect price is legally binding. Not sure if the same applies to services, or if the fact that the contract is not complete would also have bearing.

This is B2B and contract law, not consumer law.

I would however take full advantage of free legal advice to see how strong my negotiating hand was, before opening my mouth, IF taking the stance of wanting to keep some of that money.

It's a very interesting topic!

Your call. Smacks of greed to me but I'd guess you'll get to keep some of it so fill your boots.

[perplexed]

Interesting. I'm no legal beagle, but I do think the fact that the agency has paid that amount has a bearing. If goods are advertised at the wrong price, purchased, and physically obtained, then the incorrect price is legally binding.

Wrong.

If it's abundantly clear the price was a mistake and not intended to be marketed at that price ( ie website showing HD TV for £1 ) then the price is not legally binding.

Even if that law was relevant, you yourself have admitted you verbally agreed a rate so you know full well a mistake was made.

In the unlikely event it got to court, if you were prepared to lie about that... doesn't paint you in a very good light.

[chickenlegs]

This is B2B and contract law, not consumer law.

Cobblers. Been thinking at this with the wrong hat on (swaps B2C for B2B hat) Good point. I don't think this is clear cut, it could go either way.

Your call. Smacks of greed to me but I'd guess you'll get to keep some of it so fill your boots.

Whoa there, not my call, not even my problem, I'm not the OP! I'm just debating the ins and outs

I hereby revise my opinion to 2, followed by 1.5, expecting 1. I'd give it try, it's a bit late not to, OP has already put themselves on a collision course with the agent by not being honest in the first place.

[SeanT]

Two months ago, and only just noticed - OK, that stinks a bit, but if it's self-billing, and monthly, op may have only been paid once thus far (and legitimately too busy running around trying to work for a demanding client and figure out how to run a business at the same time)?