contract question

[ft101]

Hello forum

Is the following something that is fairly standard in a contract? I'm not sure I can live go ahead with it as is, and will suggest that it be reworked somewhat. Considering that I will be carrying out testing work, it seems a bit irrelevant anyway, but curious what others think.

[The Company will] remedy, without charge and with the minimum disruption to the Client, either any Services which the Client considers unsatisfactory or which contain any defects;

Any insights appreciated!

Thanks
Brian

[Archangel]

Hello forum

Is the following something that is fairly standard in a contract? I'm not sure I can live go ahead with it as is, and will suggest that it be reworked somewhat. Considering that I will be carrying out testing work, it seems a bit irrelevant anyway, but curious what others think.



Any insights appreciated!

Thanks
Brian

This clause (or ones like it) are quite common. If you are a tester, what services could you provide which would be defective? Its more for developers and techies really.

[ft101]

Thanks for the feedback!

Thats exactly what I thought, but did consider that if any defects are identified later than according to this wording, I could be brought back to advise on how to fix them.

Its good to know that its fairly standard, but i'll push for a bit of qualification and see where it gets me.

cheers

[NotAllThere]

As testing is part of the development process, it's a clause that I would ensure is not in any of my contracts. It's really only relevant when the supplier is responsible for the end-to-end service.

As a tester, if you've not tested properly, perhaps it could mean they could drag you in to retest after the bug you didn't catch is fixed.

[Gonzo]

I think that this is a standard clause that makes the point that you will be required to fix any faults with the services that you have supplied at your own cost.

This is a good thing to have for IR35 purposes as it is another pointer that you (yourCo) is not an employee who would be paid for their time regardless.

My contracts have all had something similar. So far no clients have tried to invoke that clause - but then my work is always faultless.

[The Coal Man]

I think its safe to say its a standard clause in any case.

Though as a tester you would be expected to cover items to test in a formal test plan (or at least contribute to a test plan of sorts) for auditing purposes, if these areas (test cases) are left out and bugs creep in after live date, there might be grounds for rework from a testing angle as well as a dev angle.
I assume everything you test is documented, if it isnt, make sure it is !

[ft101]

Thanks for the feedback and pointers.

I don't really care about ir35 because i'm going through a umbrella.

The testing is actually security testing, everything is documented.

thanks

[The Lone Gunman]

Make sure there is a statement at the bottom of your time sheet stating that the signatory accepts all works provided in this time period are satisfactory.

that should cover it.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

My contract places a time limitation on this stuff rather than leaving it open ended.