I think in this instance they have a good case. You have a handcuff clause, now it would be difficult to enforce if your agency was excluded from competing, but they're not, the client simply opened up the contracts. They will have got wind of this probably from the client.
My advice would be to switch back. Sure they're annoying but they are probably within their rights. Handcuff clauses are enforcable, and in this case I think it is.
They sound serious to me, not worth the hassle if they're offering you the same rate. The others are right about non-payment they can't do that.
However I would really try to move this towards an amicable solution.
I normally advise ignoring a handcuff clause if the agency doesn't offer you a renewal, this is different. At the very least consult a lawyer.
My advice would be to switch back. Sure they're annoying but they are probably within their rights. Handcuff clauses are enforcable, and in this case I think it is.
They sound serious to me, not worth the hassle if they're offering you the same rate. The others are right about non-payment they can't do that.
However I would really try to move this towards an amicable solution.
I normally advise ignoring a handcuff clause if the agency doesn't offer you a renewal, this is different. At the very least consult a lawyer.
Comment