Contract .... is this "Standard" ?

[mos]

I just got a contract to sign ... Is that "Standard" ?

[Agent] may terminate these terms of engagement for convenience immediately without notice or liability.
The Company acknowledges and agrees that it shall not have the right to terminate this Agreement for any reason prior to the end date of this Agreement ( 6 months) other than for a material breach of this Agreement by [Agent] which cannot be remedied within 21 days of receipt of written notice from the Company to [Agent].

[Clare@InTouch]

It's not standard in my experience, but it's not unheard of.

From an IR35 point of view, the fact they can terminate immediately is a good thing. Maybe not so good for your peace of mind though! You should of course ensure it has clauses on control, lack of MOO and substitution.

[northernladuk]

Certainly becoming more prevalent nowadays. Some of the big financial organisations have had this in for the last couple of years that I am aware of.

[BolshieBastard]

Lack of provision for the contractor to terminate is not a good pointer to being outside IR35.

Contractor termination but not having a 'right' to money in lieu, is since money in lieu is what permies have.

And that's from a contract lawyer (not me!).

Is it standard? No. I've never seen a contract that has it set out like that.

I have seen one or two contracts, barcrap in particular, who wont normally allow contractor termination in their contracts (except for themselves).

[ChrisPackit]

Certainly becoming more prevalent nowadays. Some of the big financial organisations have had this in for the last couple of years that I am aware of.

I know Barclays were a stickler with this one of late.

[Scoobos]

I've not seen a contract like that, and as Bolshie has said I'd be worried about the IR35 implications.

[northernladuk]

Lack of provision for the contractor to terminate is not a good pointer to being outside IR35.

Contractor termination but not having a 'right' to money in lieu, is since money in lieu is what permies have.

What do you mean by this? The wording is confusing. Not a good pointer is completely different to is not good for IR35.

Not a good pointer to me means it isn't a strong element towards proving your IR35 status so has no effect overall.

Not good for IR35 means it won't help your cause if you want to be out.

I think your explaination is confusing. Not sure where any monies in lieu comes in to it either? I don't see that mentioned at all.

Could you clarrify further so people don't get confused.

[mos]

I think your explaination is confusing. Not sure where any monies in lieu comes in to it either? I don't see that mentioned at all.

Its in the preceding paragraph:

"[Agent] may terminate these terms of engagement with immediate effect (without any payment in lieu of notice)"

[northernladuk]

Its in the preceding paragraph:

Apologies yes but as it says there won't be any doesn't mean it is an option therefore doesn't count for IR35 surely? It is kind of correct. Contractors don't get paid in lieu and this just confirms that or points it out just in case there is an expectation?

I might be worried if it mentions it anywhere else in the contract.

I would be interested to know if confirming something that is bad for IR35 is NOT included is a problem. i.e. contractor will not get holiday pay or bonus etc is ok as they don't get them anyway?

Much better to take out of course.

[BolshieBastard]

What do you mean by this? The wording is confusing. Not a good pointer is completely different to is not good for IR35.

Not a good pointer to me means it isn't a strong element towards proving your IR35 status so has no effect overall.

Not good for IR35 means it won't help your cause if you want to be out.

I think your explaination is confusing. Not sure where any monies in lieu comes in to it either? I don't see that mentioned at all.

Could you clarrify further so people don't get confused.

Happy to clarify. I have discussed this money in lieu and no contractor right to termination several times when having contracts reviewed.

In all cases, whether having contracts reviewed by B&C or a contract lawyer, their advice has been broadly the same.

Employees have a resignation clause in their contracts of employment and also a right to money in lieu if dismissed without serving the notice period. Obviously, if the employee is dismissed for gross negligence then, they probably wont get money in lieu.

From an IR35 perspective, some people claim that a contractor not having the right to terminate is a good pointer to being outside of IR35. They base this on the premise that employees are not so restricted.

However, all the contract reviewers and contract lawyer I have used said this is not really the important factor. What is important is whether you receive money when terminating for work not done. This substantially weakens MOO in that you are in receipt of money when no work is done. (I know MOO is deeper than this.)

I guess everyone needs to take or should take a steer from their onw contract reviewer \ lawyer and Im happy with the advice I have received.

You are correct, the OP didnt make any reference to money in lieu and that my post may have been a little confusing (I was after all posting serupticiously from work at the time!).

I introduced money in lieu since my argument centered on the argument of no contrator right of termination vs right of termination and why no right isnt that important in the scheme of things.