Warranties in contracts

[Muttley08]

The only time I've heard of warranties in a contract is for fixed price contracts and then there would be a warranty period (normally 1 month). You would need to get work signed off as well i.e. when it passes UAT. A warranty clause without any other scope is just suicide imho. You will end up giving them free support. Also given that you are taking on more risk I would expect the rate to be higher and as others have mentioned you end up in requirements hell and spend more time arguing what is a fix and what is a change.

yeah maybe good for ir35 but its got the potential to break you as well (hence why its good for ir35)!

WHS - Complete twoddle! Fixed price work (which this is, in essence) needs huge contracts, agreed designs etc etc)

It's just a small minded pimp / company trying it on...all going to end in tears either way...

[rootsnall]

It's just a small minded pimp / company trying it on...all going to end in tears either way...

It's already ending in tears as 'small minded company' are not paying an invoice, they have so far not provided a written reason for this. I signed the contract due to nothing else on the table and the fact the contract just says 'provide skills in X and Y' so there is nothing written down to provide a warranty against. I'm still sure I'd win any legal argument but the point is if I go legal and they challenge it then I'm in court and all that entails. Without the 'warranty' bit they would defo lose in court and I'd go for it, with that they can argue. I left the contract with a detailed written handover explaining exactly where the work was up to, why it wasn't complete, and what needed to be done. Even if I'd hung around I still couldn't of finished the work as X,Y,Z,.etc etc were not place. In other words a mess of project ! So what do you do then ?

[Muttley08]

It's already ending in tears as 'small minded company' are not paying an invoice, they have so far not provided a written reason for this. I signed the contract due to nothing else on the table and the fact the contract just says 'provide skills in X and Y' so there is nothing written down to provide a warranty against. I'm still sure I'd win any legal argument but the point is if I go legal and they challenge it then I'm in court and all that entails. Without the 'warranty' bit they would defo lose in court and I'd go for it, with that they can argue. I left the contract with a detailed written handover explaining exactly where the work was up to, why it wasn't complete, and what needed to be done. Even if I'd hung around I still couldn't of finished the work as X,Y,Z,.etc etc were not place. In other words a mess of project ! So what do you do then ?

I was working as a PM at a place when the agency / company (they were a bit of both - sold a dev team into the place) were trying this. Was a nightmare from the word go (they'd agreed 6 month delivery without knowing detailed requirements - and it was financial so couldn't be completely flexible with delivery). They tried it with a few guys, but paid in the end once threatened with legal action - think it was small claims court.

I left because I had no control over anything - and the head of development wanted to go live without a UAT! (bonuses for hitting deadlines I think) Thinking about it, they messed about with my last payment (sent to wrong bank account / other bullcrap etc..) - about 2 months later and I threatened charging interest, legal proceedings etc.. before they paid.

I'm sure the fact that it's a straight contract, they can't withhold anything - and I'm sure the small claims court isn't that much of a pain - especially if you present a diary of what's happened (you're handover details, what you were asked to do - and the fact the company hasn't given a written objection will all look pretty bad in court).

[rootsnall]

I was working as a PM at a place when the agency / company (they were a bit of both - sold a dev team into the place) were trying this. Was a nightmare from the word go (they'd agreed 6 month delivery without knowing detailed requirements - and it was financial so couldn't be completely flexible with delivery). They tried it with a few guys, but paid in the end once threatened with legal action - think it was small claims court.

I left because I had no control over anything - and the head of development wanted to go live without a UAT! (bonuses for hitting deadlines I think) Thinking about it, they messed about with my last payment (sent to wrong bank account / other bullcrap etc..) - about 2 months later and I threatened charging interest, legal proceedings etc.. before they paid.

I'm sure the fact that it's a straight contract, they can't withhold anything - and I'm sure the small claims court isn't that much of a pain - especially if you present a diary of what's happened (you're handover details, what you were asked to do - and the fact the company hasn't given a written objection will all look pretty bad in court).

I agree with what you are saying but its a b*llache I could do without ! The scenario is being driven by a client thinking they've done well screwing a consultancy with a tight contract, and then the consultancy trying to pass it on to the plebs like me. Result is a mess for all.

Always be wary of the 'agency/company' = COWBOYS !

I have had my onw rules in place that mean I've avoided contracts like this for years but in a tulip market you are forced to bend the rules.

[thunderlizard]

a client thinking they've done well screwing a consultancy with a tight contract, and then the consultancy trying to pass it on to the plebs like me. Result is a mess for all.

Nasty! as a sensible project manager once said to me, you can bully people into accepting impossible terms but you can't bully them into meeting them.

[BlasterBates]

Exactly, the courts look very favourably on the supplier, because if it is chaotic it is bl**dy obvious. Saw a dispute once firsthand, though I was just an employee of the company, and they sued the client and got paid. If it doesn't contradict any requirements written down, then basically as long as everything works without crashing or obvious defects like slow reports, then you get paid.

[Moscow Mule]

I've had a warranty clause in my contracts for years, but I've also got the following at the bottom of my timesheets:

The work evidenced on this timesheet has been performed by the service provider to the satisfaction of the Client and in accordance with the service agreement (ref: BLAH) and Engagement Schedule (BLAH) under the Client Purchase Order reference PO # BLAH. The Client signature on this timesheet is the Client authority for payment in accordance with the above mentioned agreements.

I also fix things when they are broken because of something I omitted/did wrong. I've worked for free for about 10 hours in the last 4 years.

[rootsnall]

I've had a warranty clause in my contracts for years, but I've also got the following at the bottom of my timesheets:



I also fix things when they are broken because of something I omitted/did wrong. I've worked for free for about 10 hours in the last 4 years.

On the project in question I'd be there for 4 years doing 10 hours a day

[Jet Setter]

These are on contracts all the time. The warranties are what makes having all the right insurances so important. I've never heard of anyone being caught out too badly other than a couple of hours remedial. Don't stress about it too much.

[rootsnall]

These are on contracts all the time. The warranties are what makes having all the right insurances so important. I've never heard of anyone being caught out too badly other than a couple of hours remedial. Don't stress about it too much.

I didn't stress enough and hence signed up. The problem is they aren't paying my invoice hence the stress has kicked in.

I'm a no insurance man, I've not seen a debate on that for a while. My theory, and it holds in this case is that a one man Ltd isn't worth chasing. I do have slight concerns about the personal liability stuff but not enough to shell out.