No notice specified, but not forbidden either.

[Ignis Fatuus]

My contract does not have a notice period on my side, but neither does it say that I may not give notice.

It does say that I may only terminate in such a way as to allow the agency to continue to meet the project requirements, and it says that I will bear all costs incurred by early exit from the project.

Has anyone had experience of clauses like this?

IANAL but it seems to me that if I terminate in accordance with the first requirement, this is not an early exit, it is a modified termination date - exit still takes place at the (new) termination date. And the first requirement would surely be satisfied by e.g. 1 month's notice. (The technical requirements are nothing special).

I know, I know, don't jump: vada a bordo, cazzo.

[pmeswani]

My contract does not have a notice period on my side, but neither does it say that I may not give notice.

It does say that I may only terminate in such a way as to allow the agency to continue to meet the project requirements, and it says that I will bear all costs incurred by early exit from the project.

Has anyone had experience of clauses like this?

IANAL but it seems to me that if I terminate in accordance with the first requirement, this is not an early exit, it is a modified termination date - exit still takes place at the (new) termination date. And the first requirement would surely be satisfied by e.g. 1 month's notice. (The technical requirements are nothing special).

I know, I know, don't jump: vada a bordo, cazzo.

So if you terminate your contract 5 weeks into a 6 month contract, are you liable to pay the agent for the remaining 4 months and 3 weeks of the project? The way you have worded the 2nd paragraph, I have deduced that you are financially liable for the remainder of the project. Have I assumed some facts? Quite possibly.

[Ignis Fatuus]

So if you terminate your contract 5 weeks into a 6 month contract, are you liable to pay the agent for the remaining 4 months and 3 weeks of the project? The way you have worded the 2nd paragraph, I have deduced that you are financially liable for the remainder of the project. Have I assumed some facts? Quite possibly.

Yes, I suppose that is what it means. Not just any incidental costs of finding a replacement, but the possible cost of not finding a replacement.

Clear as day but I couldn't see it. Thanks for pointing me at it. For sure that would be at least their starting position.

[pmeswani]

Yes, I suppose that is what it means. Not just any incidental costs of finding a replacement, but the possible cost of not finding a replacement.

Clear as day but I couldn't see it. Thanks for pointing me at it. For sure that would be at least their starting position.

Personally, I wouldn't accept a contract that stipulates that I have to pay an agent for leaving a contract. Nor would I accept a contract which doesn't have a notice period of no more than 4 weeks (ideally 1 to 2 weeks, but with an upper limit of 4 weeks, anything more than that, or no notice period is a straight rejection).

[Ignis Fatuus]

Personally, I wouldn't accept a contract that stipulates that I have to pay an agent for leaving a contract. Nor would I accept a contract which doesn't have a notice period of no more than 4 weeks (ideally 1 to 2 weeks, but with an upper limit of 4 weeks, anything more than that, or no notice period is a straight rejection).

Neither would I normally but I let that one slip by. I must design a workflow that does not lead me to signing things I don't want.

Anyway, contrary to the idea that I might be due for the entire rest of the agent's lost fees, the contract actually says:
All costs incurred by early exit from the project by the contractor shall be borne by the contractor. In this case, an adjustment shall be made at the last monthly bill.
So if they're talking money that could be covered by 1 month's billing, it must mean incidental costs.

Though of course the ideal way is to come to a mutual agreement. I'm sure they could be persuaded that a notice period and a handover is the best option for them too.

[northernladuk]

What does the MOO section of the contract say?

[Ignis Fatuus]

What does the MOO section of the contract say?

There isn't a specific section.

Main contract:
The contractor provides IT services, which are specified in Appendix A in more detail

Appendix A has:
Job Description: Development in the xxx environment using PL / SQL

Rate: xxx / day. The daily rate is based on 8 working hours. Only hours actually provided to be billed.


other paragraphs include:

Freedom from direction:
The contractor is not subject to direction in the execution of its activities. The planning of the task is determined by the contractor. Project-related time constraints are observed, however, as are technical specifications, provided these are necessary for the proper execution of the contract.


The Contractor shall not claim a fee if he is prevented due to illness or other absence from work from performing the services.

The Contractor receives for his services a compensation, which is defined in Appendix A. The compensation is paid only for work actually performed.

The duration of the project (man-days) in Appendix A is only indicative. Should the project be shortened for any reason, the Contractor has no right to remuneration for the entire duration of the project nor to compensation for early termination of the project.

[northernladuk]

What about subtitution?? Did you get this one reviewed?

[Ignis Fatuus]

What about subtitution?? Did you get this one reviewed?

No. It's not in the UK and not in English. But basically substitution is not allowed.

[Wanderer]

No. It's not in the UK and not in English. But basically substitution is not allowed.

So IR35 is probably not relevant then. Just get them to insert a line into the contract saying that either party can terminate the contract by giving X days notice. Sorted.