Honesty/Integrity best policy with agents/clients? Umm nope

[VillageContractor]

In theory, then, PC is in the same position as a client not being obliged to offer work; that is, he's not obliged to accept the work offered, no? Probably something that can only be done if you don't intend working somewhere again.

My thoughts exactly - or he sends in a substitute(assuming his contract allows it)

[LondonManc]

My thoughts exactly - or he sends in a substitute(assuming his contract allows it)

I must say, though, that I'm not advocating this line of action unless it's absolutely necessary.

[northernladuk]

In theory, then, PC is in the same position as a client not being obliged to offer work; that is, he's not obliged to accept the work offered, no? Probably something that can only be done if you don't intend working somewhere again.

No. You are taking about MoO (or lack of) which covers work outside the current scope of what is agreed. The fact PC is a bum on seat and doing anything the client asks him then that horse has bolted.

Whilst he's in contract he is obliged to do the work the client gives him as per the schedule (if there is some available) and they are obliged to pay him for it. It's very complicated and I am sure someone will correct me with some detail but obligations withing the contract are different to just accepting or giving work as you are pointing out.

[LondonManc]

No. You are taking about MoO (or lack of) which covers work outside the current scope of what is agreed. The fact PC is a bum on seat and doing anything the client asks him then that horse has bolted.

Whilst he's in contract he is obliged to do the work the client gives him as per the schedule (if there is some available) and they are obliged to pay him for it. It's very complicated and I am sure someone will correct me with some detail but obligations withing the contract are different to just accepting or giving work as you are pointing out.

If he's been there a while, his schedule of work may well have expired and the work been completed. While he's probably full gaping goatse (don't google that at work kids) in respect to IR35, that would surely conversely mean that the original schedule of work has been discharged and he's now a T&M whore?

[northernladuk]

If he's been there a while, his schedule of work may well have expired and the work been completed. While he's probably full gaping goatse (don't google that at work kids) in respect to IR35, that would surely conversely mean that the original schedule of work has been discharged and he's now a T&M whore?

Possibly but because he's become part and parcel and shown D&C his stuffed himself to the point he can no longer use that argument. You can't ride roughshod over your agreement and then come back and point out technicalities. He's proved his obligation via his working practices which trump his contract I'd say but it's far too complicated really.

[LondonManc]

Possibly but because he's become part and parcel and shown D&C his stuffed himself to the point he can no longer use that argument. You can't ride roughshod over your agreement and then come back and point out technicalities. He's proved his obligation via his working practices which trump his contract I'd say but it's far too complicated really.

There's always the Wibble Gambit.

[northernladuk]

No. You are taking about MoO (or lack of) which covers work outside the current scope of what is agreed. The fact PC is a bum on seat and doing anything the client asks him then that horse has bolted.

Whilst he's in contract he is obliged to do the work the client gives him as per the schedule (if there is some available) and they are obliged to pay him for it. It's very complicated and I am sure someone will correct me with some detail but obligations withing the contract are different to just accepting or giving work as you are pointing out.

I knew I'd get this wrong.... So I think I'm right about what you are talking about. Offering work and refusing to take it outside contract is the MoO we need for IR35.

There is, it appears, a mutality of obligation withing the contract. Without it there can't be a contract. That would be the the client needs work for which they will pay. The contractor does the work for the pay. Whilst the client is offering I'd say the contractor is obliged to carry it out. The not offering work is part of the T&M way we work so different to the obligation to actually offer the day.

Interesting article here, which probably muddies it even more than clears it up to be honest.

10 key facts about English contract law | SEQ Legal

Privity of Contract

It is important to remember only the parties to the contract may enforce the terms of the agreement. So for example if Mrs Smith promises to deliver a chair to Mr Jones’ office for £100, which will be paid on delivery, Mrs Smith must deliver the chair on the agreed terms. Mr Johnson, Mr Jones’ employee, who is to sit on the chair cannot sue Mrs Smith if she fails to deliver. Only Mr Jones could sue Mrs Smith for not delivering the chair.

2) Consideration

Contracts must contain mutual promises, or obligations, between the parties making the agreement. For example in return for Mrs Smith delivering the chair Mr Jones agrees to pay £100 on delivery. The obligation is the delivery of the chair and the consideration is the £100. If there is no mutual obligation then there is no contract. .

I would read in to this then that by signing the contract PC has promised to do work offered to him by the client in return for £xxx per day. If PC doesn't do it the client could sue PC for not delivering on that promise?

Or have I taken this so far out of context it's meaningless and I'm just thrashing about in the dark?

Interesting stuff either way.

[LondonManc]

Yep, it's important to cut through the differences between contractual obligations and tax positions. PC appears to be balls deep in IR35 that's for sure.

Quite what his contract says about having to attend is the key to all this. With hindsight, claiming he was going on holiday for the last two weeks of the gig and therefore unavailable would have been better.

[northernladuk]

Quite what his contract says about having to attend is the key to all this. With hindsight, claiming he was going on holiday for the last two weeks of the gig and therefore unavailable would have been better.

Dunno. If he did this and started the new gig then he's still in breach as he is unavailable to fulfill his obligations to the client. This might incense the client and agent to the point they'll go after him harder than they would otherwise. Am just guessing but you know what I mean.

[ladymuck]

Sorry to hear it's all going to tulip. It's always nice to try and end things amicably but sometimes it just doesn't work out that way.