Termination of Contract

[Statistician]

I got back from a City Break today to have a message from my agent saying that my contract was being terminated for Gross Misconduct.

I had only just finished my first week.

It was sited that I did not turn up today, plus the work was substandard.

The PM who did this, I had asked for the day off and they had said yes. On Friday we had email discussions where they had said they were happy with my work.

They have instantly terminated the contract, but he and five colleagues new where I was and there was email proof to say my work was good. The termination is instant and the agent was very quick to say they would pay me until Friday.

I was on 10 days notice.

So do I go for the 10 day notice as well as there is proof this is bolllocks, or just swallow it.

Answers on a CUK board please.

They must have found someone they knew personally or someone cheaper. Don't feel bad about it.

[tim123]

But he does take the money when it goes well, so he's due a share of the sheeit when it doesn't. And he is the principal in the contractor's contract, so he can either get out of the way or decide which side he's on.

I would agree with you if MF's desired end result is one week's money or even a change in the contractor/agency/client relationship (Not that I think any action has a hope of changing this, but at least the correct party would be being sued).

But it isn't, he (not unreasonably) seems to want some written proof that he wasn't at fault and for the client to go away with a slapped wrist to remind him not to do it again.

But he's unlikely to achieve either of these. Chances are that once you sue an agency on the basis of your contract with them, the client is going to have no further involvement in the proceeding. The agency will take it on the chin, offer you the money accompanied by some patronising letter effectively saying "we still think you are guilty but we are paying up anyway".

Of course, whether they do this one receipt of the first solicitors letter or on the steps of the court is another matter.

tim

[The Master]

Not quite. There is an argument that MF could directly sue the client for defamation of character or somesuch.

[Rebecca Loos]

only the rich sue for defamation or libel - it's very expensive and usualy not worth the hassle, with very little awards made, unless you are famous of course
don't confuse the law in its theory with what's achievable in the courts in practice

[The Master]

Quite right, Becs, but we need to cover all possibilities regardless.

[Phoenix]

only the rich sue for defamation or libel - it's very expensive and usualy not worth the hassle, with very little awards made, unless you are famous of course
don't confuse the law in its theory with what's achievable in the courts in practice

But everyone on here seems to have their own home , no Mortgage...At least 2 Holiday homes on the Med.....FFS are you now saying they're not rich and infact.....fakes?

[AlfredJPruffock]

But everyone on here seems to have their own home , no Mortgage...At least 2 Holiday homes on the Med.....FFS are you now saying they're not rich and infact.....fakes?

I must hang my head in shame and confess that altough I am the proud owner of the Pruffock Hamilton Estate(c) I have not yet acquired one , let alone two,continental estates.

I ought to sue somebody or other for this blatant discrimination ?

I wanna lawyer
I wanna priest
Take it easy Jailer
Leave my moustache at least

[threaded]

don't confuse the law in its theory with what's achievable in the courts in practice

Seems to be a common mistake with a lot of people in the UK: they think the law and it's application is the same as 'justice' is the same as 'natural justice'. So naïve as to be really quite a concern on occasion.

I blame it on Comprehensive education myself.

[Fungus]

Whoever said that the law had anything whatever to do with justice, natural or otherwise? (Can you get unnatural justice?).

Quite. The law is there for the benefit of lawyers and those who can pay. Sorry to state the "so bleedin' self evident it ain't hardly worth saying but I will say it for the benefit of the terminally naive".

I'm sure the law could be completely reformed to allow speedy processing of minor issues at modest cost. The whole thing is completely self serving.

There was an interesting programme on R4 not long ago about a con serving time for murder who decided to fight in the courts for his rights e.g. not being held in solitary for a week etc. He studied the legal business from prison books, and then went to court ... and won ... not just once ... but many times. I think he became a bit of a hero in his nick. He even gave up hitting people such as prison guards.

Fungus

[vista]

So do I go for the 10 day notice as well as there is proof this is bolllocks, or just swallow it.

Answers on a CUK board please.

Spend 10 minutes figuring out how awkward you can be then ignore it all and concentrate on getting new business - not much else matters, tomorrow needs your attention yesterday and today have already happened ;-)