Misrepresentation in "selling" a contract?

[Whumpie]

I do see what the OP is annoyed about. He's got the offer of two gigs. Let's say both 3 months and one agent says it is what it is, the other promises the OP there will be extensions and it will last longer. He's convinced and signs up, find himself canned 3 months later. The agent, apparently, misrepresented the length of the gig as a way of making him take the contract.
I think most of us have had the old, we'll give you a 12 month gig but at a lower rate like that is a good thing for us, and then we get canned a few months in. You aren't getting what you were promised and paid less for it. Annoying yes but honestly, if anyone falls for the longer contract speil they deserve what they get.

What exactly was the contract length you signed though OP. Did you sign 3 months with the promise from the agent it would be 6? Or did you sign a 6 month contract with the agent and you find out the client never intended to have you for more than three?

Either way, I still think you are chasing dreams here. You've constantly avoided the point that there are no losses to claim for, as per the contract. You were never going to earn it so impossible to stand up in court and demand it.

The loss is the difference between what I have earned here compared to what I could have earned on the other contract, save for unforeseen circumstances. In this case, about £35,000. T'ain't small beans.

[clearedforlanding]

Ok, to answer some of the questions:

1. I was approached by an agency, appointed and briefed by the end client. Where the responsibility ends up, I'm not sure, but the person who set the ball rolling for the recruitment has admitted they should have offered a three-month contract, but it's harder to get applicants.

2. The contract itself said six months, as did the offer and the blurb about the role.

3. There was absolutely no indication of any issue at three months, but it has now come to light that there was never an agreement in place for a six-month engagement.

4. There is a direct financial loss: £35k that I could reasonably have expected to earn had I taken the other contract. Down here in the South West in my profession it is not unusual to take three months to find a contract.

I think the most valid point that's been made here is the 'Consumer' point. If this was me buying something, I'd definitely have a case. The wording of some papers I have read do not specify 'Consumer' and the law is spread over many amendments and acts going back to the Sale of Goods act in the 19th century! I'm not about to read all that and would probably get it wrong anyway - so I'll see what a lawyer says and report back.

Good luck. There are several thousand years of experience here of people who have been through the same tulip multiple times.

If you do suceed you will not need to report back. There will be a movie about your plight starring Russell Crowe or Benedict Cumberbatch.

It5 sucks OP, but part of the game.

[northernladuk]

Ok, to answer some of the questions:

1. I was approached by an agency, appointed and briefed by the end client. Where the responsibility ends up, I'm not sure, but the person who set the ball rolling for the recruitment has admitted they should have offered a three-month contract, but it's harder to get applicants.

2. The contract itself said six months, as did the offer and the blurb about the role.

To be fair if be quite happy (IR35 aside) if the agents just gave me a 1 year contract and I just worked as I am needed to and finished when the job was complete or the client didn't need me. The length of time on the contract has very little to do with the duration I'll be working for so why piss around with a renewal every 3 months. A glib statement I know but there you go.

3. There was absolutely no indication of any issue at three months, but it has now come to light that there was never an agreement in place for a six-month engagement.

Which isn't uncommon when a client only works on quarterly purchase orders and the like. I'm sure a vast majority of us could walk up to our client and ask is there money for us in 3+ months time and the answer would be no. In nearly all those cases the money will appear nearer the time and on we go.

4. There is a direct financial loss: £35k that I could reasonably have expected to earn had I taken the other contract. Down here in the South West in my profession it is not unusual to take three months to find a contract.

FFS no there isn't. The client did not want you to work past that date and there are provision in the contract to give notice. You've lost nothing because you haven't earned it. The contract states you only get paid on the provision of a signed timesheet. You cannot get one of these so you do not get paid. Its there in black and white.

If the agency thought you were going to be like this they should have not given you notice, just asked you not to attend site again. You got a gauranteed 6 month contract, you just couldn't have earned a penny in that time. Same outcome.

I think the most valid point that's been made here is the 'Consumer' point. If this was me buying something, I'd definitely have a case. The wording of some papers I have read do not specify 'Consumer' and the law is spread over many amendments and acts going back to the Sale of Goods act in the 19th century! I'm not about to read all that and would probably get it wrong anyway - so I'll see what a lawyer says and report back.

But it was never a valid point so why on gods earth are you still mentioning it? It was a silly mistake you made and might have been wiser just not to mention it again to be fair.

[northernladuk]

The loss is the difference between what I have earned here compared to what I could have earned on the other contract, save for unforeseen circumstances. In this case, about £35,000. T'ain't small beans.

No way will that fly. Your other possible contracts have nothing to do with it. Anyway, It's highly likely, as shown in this case, the other contract could have ended early so its possible you couldn't have earned it.

You can't disregard unforseen circumstances in the future contract when it's the same thing that's put you in this position. It's a factor and has to be considered.

No chance anyone will award 35k on a might have scenario. It will only be on demonstrable qualified losses, of which this is neither.

And you can still earn it. Gig has ended so go get another. The fact you can't find another is no ones problem but yours.

[BlasterBates]

Actually, no - the agency has a duty of care to verify what they advertise and promote, and the client can not knowingly brief with misleading information. You can't just say what you think you need to in order to get a signature, knowing it's incorrect. The question is not whether you're supposed to do these things, though - the question is whether the law, which is really old, provides a legal means to redress given these relatively modern circumstances.

They did, they had a 6 month contract from the client. You've brought up information which the agency wouldn't have. What you seem to be implying is that the agency should be querying the internal procedures of the client; they can't make assurances based on rumours at client co, they base their decision on the contract from client co. I can understand your frustration from what the client said, but that is actually not the agency's fault.

Anyway good luck.

[uk contractor]

OP you will spend up to £35k in legal fees move on & it sounds like you are just not cutout for contracting this happens ALL THE TIME!

[Old Greg]

Legal types - your advice would be appreciated!

Three months ago, after three months out of work, I had a choice of two contracts on the table (yep - they're like buses!). I chose the one that seemed a bit 'safer' having had a few months out of the game and needing stability. Both were 'sold' as 6-month roles with a good chance of extension - and I checked this in the interviews.

Last week, three months in, I was told my client were ending the contract on a week's notice for handover. It turns out that they never did have approved funds for 6 months and nobody is surprised that it's being cut short. The person responsible for briefing the recruiter said it was "just what they always do" and then admitted "perhaps we should have put three months". Her attitude seems to be "you earn a lot you should expect this kind of thing".

The Misrepresentation Act of 1967 appears to suggest that I have a case for reparations here. Does anyone have any specific experience or knowledge that may help me decide whether to take further action? I don't want to burn bridges, but this is £35k we're talking about and their misleading claim genuinely caused me to make the wrong decision at what may be a huge cost to my finances - and I can't afford another 3-month gap to my next contract.

Misrepresentation Act 1967

Any help appreciated.

You are selling. They were saying that they might be buying.

[SussexSeagull]

Going legal will be a complete and utter waste of your time and will gain nothing for the reasons stated above.

Annoying but move on and find a new contract.

[BR14]

this is a windup, right??
are you Sure you're a contractor?

FFS.

[GhostofTarbera]

Going legal will be a complete and utter waste of your time and will gain nothing for the reasons stated above.

Annoying but move on and find a new contract.

It’s not a waste of time, it will give the agency lawyers a good full blown laugh




Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum