Going Direct...

[Fat Tom]

I have a contract with one of the large UK outsourcing folks.. - Via an agency - all standard fair with the handcuff clauses etc..

All the work I have done for the outsourcer has been carried out for an end client at the end clients site..

I now have an opportunity to go direct for the end client with the blessing of the outsourcer (They'd rather wash their hands of the whole affair I think and I'm seen as part of that solution)

My issue is will the agency have a problem with this..

The contract states lots of references to 'The Hirer' which they state at the beginning is the outsourcer. At no point is the end client mentioned in the contract with the exception of the address (place of work).

I have taken legal advice on this and the response was that I *should* be alright... there is another anti competition clause which I was advised that might prevent me from working direct - I think not as there is no relationship whatsoever between the agency and the end client (Don't think they even know each other exists sort of thing)

Was just wondering if anyone else had been in the same situation and how things turned out..

with regards to opt in/out - I don't know (I'm not that sharp :-))

Cheers

Fat Tom

[northernladuk]

Bearing in mind your opt in/out is pretty key to all this it would be a good idea to find out, and to be more aware of it next time. Ignoring stuff like this isn't very clever.

[Taita]

I have a contract with one of the large UK outsourcing folks.. - Via an agency - all standard fair with the handcuff clauses etc..

All the work I have done for the outsourcer has been carried out for an end client at the end clients site..

I now have an opportunity to go direct for the end client with the blessing of the outsourcer (They'd rather wash their hands of the whole affair I think and I'm seen as part of that solution)

My issue is will the agency have a problem with this..

The contract states lots of references to 'The Hirer' which they state at the beginning is the outsourcer. At no point is the end client mentioned in the contract with the exception of the address (place of work).

I have taken legal advice on this and the response was that I *should* be alright... there is another anti competition clause which I was advised that might prevent me from working direct - I think not as there is no relationship whatsoever between the agency and the end client (Don't think they even know each other exists sort of thing)

Was just wondering if anyone else had been in the same situation and how things turned out..

with regards to opt in/out - I don't know (I'm not that sharp :-))

Cheers

Fat Tom

You have taken legal advice presumably from a qualified solicitor? *should* be alright... is not good enough, in my opinion. I hope you did not pay for the advice as there are many here who would say the same without charge! Please excuse me if I have drawn the wrong conclusion but I do not believe your question is real.

[SueEllen]

Not being "sharp" isn't good enough.

Get the person who told you that you "should be all right" to explain in detail why until you understand.

The agency will sue you not the end client or outsourcer.

[jmo21]

Contracts often have a "and a client of the client" clause to cover this sort of thing without actually mentioning the end client by name.

Make sure your contract does not have this.

[SueEllen]

Bearing in mind your opt in/out is pretty key to all this it would be a good idea to find out, and to be more aware of it next time. Ignoring stuff like this isn't very clever.

To be fair the clause in the contract could be written so badly that even if it was taken to court due to how it is worded it can't be enforced. In that respect the opt-in/opt-out wouldn't come into it.

The Fat Tom needs to understand exactly
how and why the agency's anti-competitive clause falls down.

[SueEllen]

Contracts often have a "and a client of the client" clause to cover this sort of thing without actually mentioning the end client by name.

Make sure your contract does not have this.

Some of those clauses fall down as they can't realistically be enforced for example if the company was someone large like BT.

A court can't reinterpret the clause.

[Taita]

Some of those clauses fall down as they can't realistically be enforced for example if the company was someone large like BT.

A court can't reinterpret the clause.

Hassle, yes. Holding on to money due, yes. Much threatening and more bluster, yes. Actually going to Court - never heard of it. Why would an agency waste money on legal fees pursuing a (easy to liquidate) small company? There are silly agents even stupid agents but I cannot recall hearing of any that took the trouble to sue a contractor. However, I love to hear of good war stories!

[Fat Tom]

Thanks for the replies folks...

To be honest I think I'll just move over and take the agency with me. Currently they are taking £50 a day which is not a massive amount on the grand scheme of things and my rate is pretty good for the area already..

cheers

Fat Tom