Notice periods again

[NotAllThere]

... No notice means a great deal of MOO on your part, and the client can fire you anytime. Hardly a fair B2B contract.....

No it doesn't you ninny. Look up MUTUALITY.

You have a 100% obligation to the client. The client has zero. Ergo - not mutual.

[XLMonkey]

No it doesn't you ninny. Look up MUTUALITY.

You have a 100% obligation to the client. The client has zero. Ergo - not mutual.

WHS.

[Turion]

Wrong. He has 100% MOO to the client for the complete project duration. In theory, he has to accept any work the client gives him. Very bad IR35 wise and for unshackling himself from a sh1t project if it turns out bad.

That all sounds very employee-ish to me. As a business I make it my business only to work on equal terms with my business partners.

[Moscow Mule]

He has 100% MOO to the client for the complete project duration. In theory, he has to accept any work the client gives him.

He doesn't say that anywhere.

Also, please look up the definition of mutual.

[XLMonkey]

Wrong. He has 100% MOO to the client for the complete project duration. In theory, he has to accept any work the client gives him. Very bad IR35 wise and for unshackling himself from a tulip project if it turns out bad.

Erm, far be it from me an' all that, but. Mutuality of obligation means both that
- you have to do the work assigned
- the client has to assign you work (this is the key one)

In this case, the client is not obliged to assign work. The client can, if it suits them, stop the contract at their discretion (irrespective of whether the project is continuing or not). Whereas in contrast, the supplier is obliged to do the work that is required.

the fact that the obligation is asymmetric (i.e. notice period on assigning work, but not on the doing of the work that's assigned) is what points away from MOO.

Mind you, the arse end of a cow is also what points away from MOO, so it pays to be sure what you're looking at.

[VectraMan]

the fact that the obligation is asymmetric (i.e. notice period on assigning work, but not on the doing of the work that's assigned) is what points away from MOO.

But is it better to have no obligation either way, or is half-moo still a half-pointer towards?

[NotAllThere]

Wrong. He has 100% MOO to the client for the complete project duration. In theory, he has to accept any work the client gives him. ...[/

Right. He has 100% obligation
... to the client for the complete project duration, to provide the services specified in the contract.

No mutuality. No obligation outside what is specified in the contract.

I could hire a law firm for a year. When I have any legal work needing do, they're obliged to do it for me, during that year. When I haven't got any legal work doing, but my garden needs weeding, they're under no obiligation to help out.

[XLMonkey]

But is it better to have no obligation either way, or is half-moo still a half-pointer towards?

If a cow half-moos in a forest, would anyone hear?

[its not a half-pointer. all contracts are full of obligations, that being what they're for. the thing to look out for is mutuality of obligations to provide work and to do it]

[Turion]

Right. He has 100% obligation
... to the client for the complete project duration, to provide the services specified in the contract.

No mutuality. No obligation outside what is specified in the contract.

I could hire a law firm for a year. When I have any legal work needing do, they're obliged to do it for me, during that year. When I haven't got any legal work doing, but my garden needs weeding, they're under no obiligation to help out.

Then, by your reckoning, the client can just 'switch him on and off' whenever then have the need for him. Just pay for the time they need him and then he has to go home and wait (without pay), just in case they need him again during the project duration. He cannot even take another contract as he is effectively on call.

IR35 aside, this is a terrible arrangement. No business would accept those conditions. Even prostitutes are better off as they can seek new clients. Vectraman, just say no.

[VectraMan]

Been doing some searching here and on PCG's (tulipe) forum, and it seems there's two contradictary arguments. One is that by having no notice period it implies you have to accept work, and the other is that as an employee has to have the right to give notice by not having one you seem less of an employee.

Something else the agent said that I hadn't really thought about until now: he said they have a notice period to terminate the agreement with the client, it's just my contract with the agent that doesn't. So in other words, as far as the client is concerned I can give notice, just that the agent doesn't trust me.

Probably also means as the two contracts contradict each other, it's no use for IR35 either way.

I'm in two minds whether to just walk away, or accept that it's easy money which I could do with and that it's unlikely that I would want to get out of it and may have to accept some tulip if I do.