Contract going past end date

[SimonMac]

Oh dear.



Between you and me, my last contract had periods like this, on site, no 'work' to do. I still billed and they still paid.

For the benefit of any HMRC trolls through, I just made that up

It was more the "were you on site" rather than what you did

[northernladuk]

not really, the absolute best i could hope for is 10 days at the end of january

Maybe just keep quiet until you have been paid for Jan and then start legal proceedings for 15 days in Dec and 5 in Jan? The threat of legal action may force a compromise? You need the contract reading from top to bottom to make sure you have a case.

Rocking the boat right now might mean you losing out on 10 days more?

[doodab]

I would point out to them that the reason they agreed to pay for a minimum 15 days in the first place was to retain your services, and clearly if they aren't going to pay they aren't going to retain them so next time they offer you a short term gig the rate will be higher and you won't guarantee to be available. Then next time they call you to offer you some work tell them you will do it for a higher rate (+20-25% is about right for very short term stuff) but they will have to start things a day later cos you are busy.

[TheFaQQer]

Without seeing the whole contract (or even the relevant parts), no-one here can give you a relevant answer. However....

The problem (as I see it) is where the liability lies to provide the work.

For example, my current contract requires my company to provide a given number of days between the start of the contract and the middle of January. It was done this way because I needed flexibility over when I was working (for holidays), but they needed to ensure that I was going to get the work done. If the number of days wasn't worked, then it would be the fault of my company, and I would be in breach of contract.

From what you are saying (and I don't think it's unreasonable reading your follow up post), the client was obliged to pay for a minimum of 15 days work a month for the period that the contract was in place. It was the obligation of the client to provide that work, or pay for the 15 days.

The next point, then, is to determine whether there was a contract in place. September was fine, October, November - once you did that first day of the month, you would have had an implied contract (they let you do the work, so they were accepting the relationship). However, you did no work in December, so no implied contract is immediately obvious. Have you got anything in writing which implies that they were expecting you to be there and working in December? If so, then that strengthens your case somewhat.

I'd be surprised if you get anything for December from this, to be honest. I would stick an invoice in for December, and keep working for January. When you get the January money, then chase for December. When the client again says that there was no contract, then ask at what point did the contract for January start - there must have been one, because you did work and they paid for it.

If you want any money for December, then I think it's going to have to be through a legal route - and I would take proper advice before thinking about something like that. Jon Antel is a name that has been mentioned before on CUK for advice, but I don't know what he's like or what the charges are.

IANAL - speak to someone who is

[psychocandy]

Oh dear. Doesnt sound good OP. Think they saw you coming.... :-(

[blacjac]

If you have been turning up for work, and getting paid for work done, then I would say your original contract is still in place.

Again, it depends on the wording however I had a similar situation a few years back.

I had 1k per month guaranteed work in the contract, in a contract with 10 months left to run and no notice on my side.

The key here is the word "work" and not "pay".
They grantee to provide you with work, not to pay you when there is no work.


When my client didn't provide the 1k worth of work one month, I got the contract reviewed by my solicitor and then used it to terminate due to breach of contract (I was tied in to a one year contract with no notice, but didn't want to stay as there was clearly no work to do).


If you are hoping to use this clause to get paid for not doing work, you have misunderstood the clause.

If you are hoping to use the clause to get out of the contract, then you may be able to do that (depending on the wording) as they have now breached the contract.

All IMO of course - discuss it with your lawyer.

[TheFaQQer]

Again, it depends on the wording however I had a similar situation a few years back.

The last job my dad had, there was a guarantee of a minimum number of days work each month.

About three months after he left, he realised that no-one had ever terminated the contract, so sent them an invoice for the time, with a letter suggesting that they agree to terminate the contract at the same time.

Easiest money he'd every earned - but as you say, it depends on the wording of the contract.