Agenct's Negligence

[d000hg]

MF you think this is KC back again with a long and semi-believable thread?

Because the client has now withdrawn the offer I have no choice but to employ the services of a solicitor to take the case to court where I intend to sue the agency for the entire value of the contract (£65,000 + VAT) plus costs of visiting to Hong Kong and London plus legal costs.

Question answered...

[TestMangler]

Question answered...

Good spot !

[factgasm]

factgasm read your post back can you not understand why people are sceptical, your waiting months hanging onto a possible job that you had no proper confirmation for and still right now has not happened.

Why did you not walk away!! Most people having been messed around this much just within a few weeks would have moved on to other roles not still be there months later still hanging onto it.

Due to thinking it was a hoax you took your time and a lot of money to fly to Hong Kong to see if it was real...who would do this?? you must be rich or mad or both why would anyone do this and BUY a flight to see if a contract is real??? I would not even drive 10 miles to go and see if a contract was real to try and talk to the client with all that hassle, if the agent is messing me that much around I walk away as I would not want to be working through a bunch of useless idiots anyhow!!

Perhaps I should have expressed myself more accurately that I was concerned that no-one at either the agency or the client's office appeared to be taking leadership in driving the issue to its conclusion, namely the issue of an appropriate contract. I felt someone had to take the lead. The client congratulated me for my iniative.

Once the client had expressed interest in issuing me a contract on 19th September automatically they were bound to do so or clearly state otherwise. The client and I were essentially bound by contract via the agency at that point and the client was potentially liable for failing to complete the offer (see promisory illusion).

Once the contract was formally issued to the agent but the agent failed issue it to me on 8th November due to negligence on their part, the agent became liable from that date. This is inescapable.

I am grateful for everyone who has responded so far, it's good practice to have others play Devil's Advocate. However none of the arguments so far could be presented before a judge to undermine the case against the agency. If you believe otherwise please let me know explaining why.

Please refer to links in my second post.

[Notascooby]

So what is the point of this thread again?

[factgasm]

So what is the point of this thread again?

To relate the story and stimulate debate.

By refering to links alone you may learn something new and useful.

[Notascooby]

To relate the story and stimulate debate.

By refering to links alone you may learn something new and useful.

But surely what most people would do is stop flogging a dead one, move on and get another contract (if available) thus not losing revenue or running around in at state p1ssing everyone off.

So the only leason I've learnt is - if it all starts going t1ts up - move on.

Saying that I was messed around for 7 weeks with my current gig but by the time the paperwork came through I'd 2 other offers on the table.

[factgasm]

But surely what most people would do is stop flogging a dead one, move on and get another contract (if available) thus not losing revenue or running around in at state p1ssing everyone off.

So the only leason I've learnt is - if it all starts going t1ts up - move on.

Saying that I was messed around for 7 weeks with my current gig but by the time the paperwork came through I'd 2 other offers on the table.

Where is your fortitude?

But at what point do you decide something is going wrong? Bear in mind the contract was issued to me on Monday of this week (albeit without the start date). I had been right all along to hold out for the formal offer. It was the agents, for reasons they will have to explain in court who are at fault and will be liable for it.

[factgasm]

Further update: the agency's MD has just emailed me saying that "Regrettably we were defeated by time."

To quote Wikipedia on Implied Covenant and Good Faith:

"In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in every contract in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract. A lawsuit (or a cause of action) based upon the breach of the covenant may arise when one party to the contract attempts to claim the benefit of a technical excuse for breaching the contract, or when he or she uses specific contractual terms in isolation in order to refuse to perform their contractual obligations, despite the general circumstances and understandings between the parties."

[cojak]

Well I let him in wondering how long he'd be around for.

It wasn't worth it really. Not terribly original.

[tractor]

..

Further update: the agency's MD has just emailed me saying that "Regrettably we were defeated by time."

To quote Wikipedia on Implied Covenant and Good Faith:

"In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in every contract in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract. A lawsuit (or a cause of action) based upon the breach of the covenant may arise when one party to the contract attempts to claim the benefit of a technical excuse for breaching the contract, or when he or she uses specific contractual terms in isolation in order to refuse to perform their contractual obligations, despite the general circumstances and understandings between the parties."

Have any of the parties signed any contract yet?

If not, there is no binding contract. Any promises made by the client would be dependent upon you being able to agree mutual terms with the agent. ISTM that stage has not yet and is unlikely to ever be reached.

Any case you are able to bring against the agent will likely depend upon substantial support from the client. Do you have that level of support? Experience suggests that as soon as this kind of dispute appears on the horizon, most clients would beat a hasty retreat and wash their hands of it entirely. Clients use agents in part to distance themselves from this type of issue, not to embroil themselves in it.

In contract law, whilst there are pre-contract negotiations that potentially determine a binding contract, this is rarely the case in reality.

So far, the only case the agent has to answer is one of (in)competence as far as I can see.