Expenses NOT included

[b0redom]

I don't really understand what all the bickering is about.

You should have a clause in your contract which states whether expenses accrued can be invoiced back to the client.

If you don't then you're:

1) Daft
2) Hosed

You can always ask after the fact, but unlikely to get them paid.

Personally I always also ask at interview if it's likely that I'll incur some expenses - at the same time I ask about overtime - ie - do I bill overtime, down tools or have an informal agreement to be a bit flexible.

IMO costs associated with getting to the home base of the contract are never claimable. If they ask you to go visit another site etc then they are.

Rather than trawling through legislation which is not designed to protect you in any case, wouldn't it have made more sense to spend 30 mins checking your contract before signing it?

[jmo21]

Not at all pedantic. This illustrates why it is so important that things are clear.

So the offer from agent:

"Go and work in different country - expenses paid"

Contractor: "yes please"

This is clear to me that the offer includes expenses and is an inducement to take up offer.

Agent: oh lets do this quick, go and take up contract. We will use umbrella company.

Contractor: No, sorry, I need my contract in writing.

Fixed that to what you should have done.

With a local contract, yes, maybe start straight away while waiting contract - maybe!

with expenses dependant on it, in another country? No chance.

[pimped]

Fixed that to what you should have done.

With a local contract, yes, maybe start straight away while waiting contract - maybe!

with expenses dependant on it, in another country? No chance.

I agree absolutely. However this is not about me but about the person who started the thread, was offered expenses and then those same expenses were declined. Something is not correct in that case.

[TheFaQQer]

I agree absolutely. However this is not about me but about the person who started the thread, was offered expenses and then those same expenses were declined. Something is not correct in that case.

As I said earlier:

Are you the agent of the contractor in this thread?

Unless you are party to the contract between Mariebl and the agency, I don't understand how you can state what (s)he agreed.

Are you the OP, but using a different username? Why all the mention of being overseas / umbrella / employment regs, when there is absolutely nothing in the thread which supports any mention of that???

Without knowing what is in the contract for the OP, then no-one can offer anything meaningful about what to do. The closest would be the comment from b0redom

You should have a clause in your contract which states whether expenses accrued can be invoiced back to the client.

If you don't then you're:

1) Daft
2) Hosed

[pimped]

As I said earlier:


Are you the OP, but using a different username? Why all the mention of being overseas / umbrella / employment regs, when there is absolutely nothing in the thread which supports any mention of that???

Without knowing what is in the contract for the OP, then no-one can offer anything meaningful about what to do. The closest would be the comment from b0redom

Thank's for the reply. No and no. I am not using a different user name and not duplicating posts. If you read my response I said that I have experienced something similar.

The employment regs come up because the OP stated that they responded to an offer of work plus expenses paid. I have replied that I have experience something similar. I do disagree with the quote from B0redom who suggests that it is hard cheese and they should double check everything. Just because you sign a contract does not make it legal. There is the intention to consider. The intention of the OP was to sign a contract with expenses paid. Just because there has been an omission does not make it a binding contract since it is not a reflection of what was agreed. (a meeting of minds)

My response to that is that the OP accepted an offer. Clearly whoever the OP was dealing with has 1. made a mistake or 2. purposely misled. In either case this can be sorted out. I would suggest 1. Since it is clearly a mistake. On the otherhand if the answer is 2. Then someone is being dishonest.

However, at the end of the day you do not have to read my response if you find it unmeaningful. Or are you suggesting that I do not post?

[b0redom]

Just because you sign a contract does not make it legal.

Are you on crack? That's exactly what it means. If it didn't, what's to stop me saying, "Oh I know I signed a contract stating I'd work for £x00 / day, but what I actually intended was that was for every 3rd Saturday during a leap year. My intended day rate is £x000."

[pimped]

Are you on crack? That's exactly what it means. If it didn't, what's to stop me saying, "Oh I know I signed a contract stating I'd work for £x00 / day, but what I actually intended was that was for every 3rd Saturday during a leap year. My intended day rate is £x000."

What you refer to above is dishonest. The OP states they replied upon a jd which states "expenses paid". .... bit of a difference to the scenario above, I would say.


In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, at contracting, that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defence, and if raised successfully can lead to the agreement in question being found void ab initio or voidable.

[b0redom]

How do you know if I was being dishonest? I might just have forgotten to mention it.

As regards expenses, I imagine that any sensible ruling would be based on what is expected. In almost all industries, expenses cover non-standard operating costs.

You wouldn't expect a builder to charge you mileage to come an put you up a conservatory unless that specifically was agreed first.

You wouldn't expect a plumber to charge you for buying a wrench so he can change taps.

Anyway, I'm reasonably sure that you're a troll, so off I go......

[TheFaQQer]

The employment regs come up because the OP stated that they responded to an offer of work plus expenses paid. I have replied that I have experience something similar

So, did the OP opt out of the regulations correctly? If they didn't then it may be relevant. However, it isn't relevant (since the OP is not being forced into accommodation), and you don't know their status. Without knowing that, any mention of the regulations is rubbish.

Just because you sign a contract does not make it legal.

If there is nothing illegal in the contract, and the contract does not breach the unfair contract terms act (which is rare in a business to business contract), then the contract as signed is what is legally valid. Any suggestion otherwise is rubbish.

My response to that is that the OP accepted an offer.

I agree. They accepted an offer, which was formally made in writing by giving a contract. This is what was accepted, by signing the contract.

[Wanderer]

I agree. They accepted an offer, which was formally made in writing by giving a contract. This is what was accepted, by signing the contract.

Moral of the story: verbal contracts are not worth the paper they are written on.

Forget all the sales patter from the agent in a shiny arsed suit read the contract before it's signed, ask for clarification (in writing) of anything that is unclear before you sign it. The trick is that agencies are very reluctant to front up with a contract at an early stage and then pressure you to make a quick decision/signoff. They wait till you are hooked before they throw in a contract with some nasty one sided stuff in it.