Contract hasn't come through, but job has started

[northernladuk]

Ahhh, sorry NLUK completely read that wrong.

I shall go out and beat myself up now.

Ummm - That's quite the opposite of what your emoticon indicates. That is one guy beating another one up. If you do need me to step in I would be happy to help redress the balance though

Also to be fair I put both options in my response so only half a beating required.

[Wanderer]

A formation of contract consists of offer, acceptance, consideration, intention, etc. As long as you have evidence that they are offering you the job for x amount per day, then by you turning up and working and them allowing you to do so can be deemed as acceptance by conduct.

Sure, I agree with that - a contract doesn't have to be written but the devil is in the (contract) detail.

Once you start work, you are in a much weaker position when it comes to negotiating contract length, notice period, payment terms, agency tie-in and whatever other bulltulip the agency wants to try and throw in.

Also, if it comes to a dispute then you are much more likely to settle the matter quickly if you have a written contract which is what I meant about people getting burned...

Here's a thought: If the agency sends the contractor a signed contract and the contractor starts work without signing it then the contract has been accepted, right.

What if the contractor sends the agency a signed contract before the work starts (let's say using the PCG's template, nice). In the absence of any contract offered by the agency, gotcha, they've tacitly accepted your one. Don't know if it would work but it would be funny to play them at their own game.

[SueEllen]

.
What if the contractor sends the agency a signed contract before the work starts (let's say using the PCG's template, nice). In the absence of any contract offered by the agency, gotcha, they've tacitly accepted your one. Don't know if it would work but it would be funny to play them at their own game.

It's accepted once they pay you. You can argue you it's accepted before that but that's the easiest way to prove it.

However they could deny receiving the contract.

As disappearing and not receiving paperwork happens a lot in legal disputes, you should always send contracts like that by special delivery. It helps nowadays that the delivery number is on the receipt so you aren't likely to lose it.

Normal contracts should be sent at least by recorded signed-for delivery. This is in case you get an agency who tries the trick of "we haven't signed the contract and returned it to you so it's not enforceable from our side", plus you should at least have photocopy of the contract terms if they haven't sent you an email copy.

BTW it doesn't matter if you can't prove the other side has signed for the letter the fact that you sent it that way and the the RM is a neutral 3rd party is enough to prove to judges etc that you are likely to be telling the truth that you have sent it while the other side is likely not to be telling the truth about receiving it.

[Wanderer]

Normal contracts should be sent at least by recorded signed-for delivery. This is in case you get an agency who tries the trick of "we haven't signed the contract and returned it to you so it's not enforceable from our side"

Hmmm good idea. I guess I could even mail myself (recorded delivery) a signed copy of the contract and never open it so I have some sort of proof that it was sent on that day.

Why the agents let this situation happen at all is beyond me though, it's just bad business and leads to problems. Having a written agreement is by far the friendliest way to do business as there are no unfortunate misunderstandings.