Complicated Scenario!

[Scotchpie]

To be honest there is little to be confused about. You were hired by the client on a "mates who help mates" basis (free?). Therefore neither the original contractor or the client owes you anything.

Obviously you are doing a good job and the client wants you to complete the job rather than the original contractor.

The problem for you, if I've read correctly, is that you have verbally agreed to work for free - no wonder he wants you to stay and sack the other (despite his persistent drunkenness).

You have to go back and say that you were only helping out and if you are to stay on you need a contract and an hourly/daily rate.

As for work done, well you did agree to work for free (and as far as I know verbal contracts are legally binding in this situation), and you fulfilled your agreement. Write it off and learn that you NEVER work for free, not even for mates. In fact don't work one minute more for the client until he agrees with you a rate and terms of agreement.

This is your business. Would your mate risk his buisness for you? If he is your mate though he will understand perfectly where you're coming from.

[Ivor Bigun]

Hi Folks,

I have a scenario I'd like to run by some of m'learned friends here at CUK & see what sticks. I've been involved in a project recently which has been a bit of a rescue job & it's all getting complicated - here's the situation.

The primary contractor for the job & his staff left site on 20th Nov 2008 to do another job, never returned until January 2009. To give you an idea of the contractor here, this guy was walking around the client site pi**ed as a newt most of the time & could be found any time of day in the local pub...

Now, as the client involved here is a very good friend of mine, I offered to help out in the absense of primary contractor, on a 'mates who help mates' basis - which is fair enough - however....the primary contractor has now been told by the clientco that, as I have carried out the majority of the work, I must be paid for the work done.

Sounds fair enough really doesn't it?

I am just wondering where I now stand on recovery of monies owed should the primary contractor default...it's not happened yet as the job is ongoing & I have not invoiced yet, but just would like some views from you folks!!

I guess the motto is, never offer to help...but life's not that simple!!

Repeat after me.... There are no friends in business.
What you should be doing is saying to your mate is.....
"Get the P*sshead to pay me on these rates".

Oh, and by the way, you've been stitched up.
Chalk it down to experience.

[jmo21]

its up to client to recover any money back from the original contractor

that depends on what the contract between those two looks like.

did the original contractor get agreement to go off site? if they did, and the work then was done by you, why should they have to give money back?

[Platypus]

Your "mate" has neatly transferred the problem of recovering money from the original contractor on to you. Not very nice of him

What's clear here is that if there's any money to be recovered from the original contractor, then it's down to your mate to recover it. Since he seems to feel that you should be paid for the work you've done, he can then pay you with that money.

I somehow don't have the impression that he'll be chasing the original contractor very hard.

[loubylou]

As some others have already stated you have no relationship with the sub therefore they do not have to pay you.

Generally the clientco should have a clause for default/non performace of the contract.

In this event the clientco should have invoked these clauses and followed the procedures potentially ending up in court if disputed by the primary contractor.

If everything went ok and sub effectively paid for the additional work done by you then it would be down to clientco to pay it to you.

In the event that they have not followed the contract procedures i.e. any remedies in the contract there is not much they can do.

If procedures have been followed then the clientco should have gotten several quotes for the work and ensured that they got best value for money to prove to a court that they tried to mitigate any losses.

Basically it boils down to the clientco putting it down to experience and paying you out of their own pocket or you don't get paid.