is this IR35 friendly?

[To BI or not to BI?]

"The Supplier warrants that it has identified the person to be engaged for the contract and that the person has been engaged for a period of not less than the terms specified in the contract or, in the case of another person, will be engaged for the relevant part of the contract"

Also:

"if the Guarantee is applicable in the event of breach of the agreement by the supplier, the named person shall perform the obligations of the supplier"

What does the estimated panel of experts think?

[el duder]

"The Supplier warrants that it has identified the person to be engaged for the contract and that the person has been engaged for a period of not less than the terms specified in the contract or, in the case of another person, will be engaged for the relevant part of the contract"

Also:

"if the Guarantee is applicable in the event of breach of the agreement by the supplier, the named person shall perform the obligations of the supplier"

What does the estimated panel of experts think?

You're fukced

[To BI or not to BI?]

You're fukced

I knew I could count on your expert and eloquent opinion, duder . Maybe I should have put a disclaimer saying "constructive and instructive content only, please"

[freakydancer]

"The Supplier warrants that it has identified the person to be engaged for the contract and that the person has been engaged for a period of not less than the terms specified in the contract or, in the case of another person, will be engaged for the relevant part of the contract"

Also:

"if the Guarantee is applicable in the event of breach of the agreement by the supplier, the named person shall perform the obligations of the supplier"

What does the estimated panel of experts think?

tulip creak without a paddle.

[TheFaQQer]

No,no,no,no,no.

[To BI or not to BI?]

thought so. i have asked them to remove or modify those conditions... let's see what happens

[Bluebird]

doesn't the 1st part point to "substitution" and is therefore IR35 friendly ?

[malvolio]

doesn't the 1st part point to "substitution" and is therefore IR35 friendly ?

Yes, it is trying merely to ensure that any sub is under the control of the OP's company and subject to the same Ts&Cs. So fairly minor in IR35 terms

However, para 2 is a killer: you can't make an individual responsible for the contract if the contracted company disappears. That needs to go.

[To BI or not to BI?]

Yes, it is trying merely to ensure that any sub is under the control of the OP's company and subject to the same Ts&Cs. So fairly minor in IR35 terms

However, para 2 is a killer: you can't make an individual responsible for the contract if the contracted company disappears. That needs to go.

You are very right, Mal and another couple of clauses in the contract were even fishier than the ones above. The agency came back to me and basically told me to either take it or lump it, so I told them what's what and, as a result, I am now on the bench again......

T***ers

[oraclesmith]

Was that a wise decision?

If you had worked out the difference between being inside IR35 and outside, you can then see how long you can be on the bench before you start losing out.

As for the second clause, it's certainly unusual, but what could they really do to pursue you as an individual ? If they made you work for the client under duress, do they really think you'd do a good job? If a clause like that is seen as unreasonable by the courts there's naff all they can do about enforcing it.