How valid is this clause?

[Harrysp]

The Contractor (or preferred operator) shall not solicit nor enter into any contract for services or of service with the Client to provide the services of computer consulting during the period of assignment and for a period of twelve (12) months thereafter.

As the company wants me back, my old agency isnt on their PSL any longer.

[Mordac]

Then there's no need for your old agency to find out, is there.

Besides, 12 months is generally considered unenforceable, although you should take professional advice (i.e. get a contract law specialist to look at your original contract and give you a professional opinion) before doing anything else.

[boredsenseless]

Then there's no need for your old agency to find out, is there.

Besides, 12 months is generally considered unenforceable, although you should take professional advice (i.e. get a contract law specialist to look at your original contract and give you a professional opinion) before doing anything else.

Although obviously next time round get these types of clauses looked at by a contract specialist before signing

[XLMonkey]

The Contractor (or preferred operator) shall not solicit nor enter into any contract for services or of service with the Client to provide the services of computer consulting during the period of assignment and for a period of twelve (12) months thereafter.

As the company wants me back, my old agency isnt on their PSL any longer.

The clause is perfectly legal if it is between two companies (it isn't likely to be enforced in a contract between a company and an individual).

However, the drafting looks a bit loose and I suspect was written by a numpty. Does it specifies a remedy for breach of contract?
- If the remedy is lost earnings, then you are fine, since the agent is no longer a PSL they can't claim a loss.
- If it doesn't specify a remedy, then you can break the contract and there isn't anything practical that they can do about it (unless they still owe you money, in which case they may well be able to withold payment).
- If it specifies a cash amount as a remedy, then you may well have a problem, and would need to consult a lawyer.

Restraint of trade is always a bit fiddly. I seem to remember about 8 previous versions of this question being posted in the last few months. I think if you search for "restraint clauses" on the forum then you'll find chapter and verse repeated several times.

[mcquiggd]

I do seem to remember some vague ruling by the europeon caught without humane rights that said '3 months max' or its restraint of trade...

Change yer name by deed poll for the duration of the contract, get breast implants, slap on th St Tropez fake tan, tell everyone you is from a minority group, and I doubt youll get sued.....

Its all about fairness, as the nu lab machine keeps ejaculating.

[Newby]

Allegis Group

I have seen that clause before, its smells like Allegis Group to me, i got it taken out of a contract when I started talking about restriction of trade. If they cannot supply to the PSL then there is absolutely nothing to worry about. So crack on!!!

[Mailman]

For the clause to be enforceable it must be specific to where you cannot work for the client.

In its current wording you have to take it as meaning that you cannot work ANYWHERE for the client, including overseas sites and offices in other cities...which makes the clause all but useless.

IF on the other hand they said that you cannot work for the client in London for x months then they would have more chance of having the courts agree with them that you owe them a large amount of cash as compensation for loss of business.

Then again you can argue that YOU DIDNT approach the client for work, they approached you and there is nothing in your contract to say the client cant come get some sugar from you

Also, because you are OPTED IN you can change agents at the end of the contract...AND...its even more interesting that the agents are no longer part of the PSL, that to me would mean you can move to another agents regardless of what the agents threaten you with (as they cannot stop you from earning a living, and if the client says they will no longer deal with the agents then its up to the agents to sue the clients for losses etc).

Remember, this advice is worth about as much as you paid for it

Mailman

[thunderlizard]

Ah yes, I've been in this situation before (exclusivity clause but agent drops off the PSL). But I think mine was a bit worse because we were talking about coninuous extensions, not a return. Things to consider
(1) get some proper legal advice. The free 20 minutes that the PCG package includes is good for this.
(2) new agency regs - if you haven't opted out they might come to your aid by saying this is an illegal restriction.
(3) the old agency might not find out
(4) If they do, they can't really sue for more than what their margin would have been. So the thing to do (assuming you're going direct) is bill the client for (at least) your old rate plus the old agency margin, and keep the margin set aside in case they do blow the whistle
(5) The client is usually more legally vulnerable, so you might want to work on the principle that if the client's happy, so should you be. I'm not sure that 'they're not on the PSL any more' is an adequate defence for the breaching exclusivity.

[Sputnik]

I do seem to remember some vague ruling by the europeon caught without humane rights that said '3 months max' or its restraint of trade...

Change yer name by deed poll for the duration of the contract, get breast implants, slap on th St Tropez fake tan, tell everyone you is from a minority group, and I doubt youll get sued.....

Its all about fairness, as the nu lab machine keeps ejaculating.

I think we've found Janey!

[IT contract agent]

(5) The client is usually more legally vulnerable, so you might want to work on the principle that if the client's happy, so should you be. I'm not sure that 'they're not on the PSL any more' is an adequate defence for the breaching exclusivity.

I'd say this is about right....agencies can't stop you from working - and their really isn't much point in chasing your Ltd company however we can take action against the client...I'd be more inclined to do this also if they're not using me any longer