Tied In??

[eternalnomad]

if you REALLY need to get out of the contract then sit down with the client (take no notice of the agency they only care about the margin) and explain the issues you are having.

If they cannot or will not understand your frustration then you need to have your contract professionally reviewed for potential "chink in the armour"

Roger Sinclair would be able to offer such a service http://www.egos.co.uk

[Muggers]

Even if the client is in breach of the contract - e.g. not giving you work as defined in it - then this does not give you the right to terminate (save what is in the contract).

If they are in breach of the contract, how then is the contract enforceable?

CORRECT: The contract would be null and void!

[tim123]

CORRECT: The contract would be null and void!

Rubbish. The normal remedy for a breach is to be given the opportunity to remedy the breach.

Only if the party refuses to do so could it be possible to think that the contract could be terminated for the breach.

This works both ways. Say you, as the contractor have agreed to a 40 hour week, *every week* and one week you only do 39 hours, does this give the
client the right to void the contract and not pay you for work done. No of course it fecking doesn't.

tim

[Dundeegeorge]

Really

Rubbish. The normal remedy for a breach is to be given the opportunity to remedy the breach.

Only if the party refuses to do so could it be possible to think that the contract could be terminated for the breach.

This works both ways. Say you, as the contractor have agreed to a 40 hour week, *every week* and one week you only do 39 hours, does this give the
client the right to void the contract and not pay you for work done. No of course it fecking doesn't.

tim

If it's not a mutually agreed shortfall of 1 hour, then somebody is in breach of the contract and strictly (technically) then the contract could (probably) be voided.
Otherwise what would be the fecking point of having contracts.

[ASB]

Even if the client is in breach of the contract - e.g. not giving you work as defined in it - then this does not give you the right to terminate (save what is in the contract).

If they are in breach of the contract, how then is the contract enforceable?

Ok, I missed a word: "then this does not give you the absolute right to terminate".

Every breach of a contract gives rise to a potential action in the civil courts. In the absense of anything specific in the contact the provisions under common law will be that the contracted party should be no worse off. This has been held not to release the contracted party from thier obligations - dependant upon the severity of the breach by the contractor.

The problem the OP faces is that he cannot show loss as a result of their breach. The client is still buying his time - the basic bit of the contract. And paying for it.

Thus the OP has to show that it is absolutely fundamental to him that he is an "ABC" not an "XYZ". He may succeed. He may not.

If the client has the contractual right to reassign him then there is no breach anyway. By previously accepting the reassignment he has weakened his position that work of type "ABC" was fundamental to the contract, and moved it more towards well "ABC" would be nice but other stuff is OK.

[expat]

If it's not a mutually agreed shortfall of 1 hour, then somebody is in breach of the contract and strictly (technically) then the contract could (probably) be voided.
Otherwise what would be the fecking point of having contracts.

The point of contracts is that you can be held to them or face the consequences. The client could withhold the 1 hour's fee, or even dispute a larger sum as being what he lost by your shortfall (for example the cost of a temporary replacement). If that (what he actually lost) is handed over, he now hasn't lost and has no justification for calling the contract void.

(like ASB said, better).

[ASB]

CORRECT: The contract would be null and void!

Believe that by all means, but it may turn out to be an unhelpful view.

[Dundeegeorge]

It depends on the terms of the contract

The point of contracts is that you can be held to them or face the consequences. The client could withhold the 1 hour's fee, or even dispute a larger sum as being what he lost by your shortfall (for example the cost of a temporary replacement). If that (what he actually lost) is handed over, he now hasn't lost and has no justification for calling the contract void.

(like ASB said, better).

I would be interested to hear of a case where a contract has been breached and reparation made and the contract has continued thereafter.
Legally you're probably correct, but in the real world would it happen?
If OP f*cks off because of a (claimed) breach in the contract by the other party, would they want him back after making whatever reparations are allowed for in the contract?
(And yes, once you've actually done work not in the contract it's a bit late to claim that you shouldn't have done it (homologation in Scottish law, I don't know if it's the same in English law))

[expat]

If OP f*cks off because of a (claimed) breach in the contract by the other party, would they want him back after making whatever reparations are allowed for in the contract?

I shouldn't think they would be wise to. But I'd guess they could get in a replacement, at whatever price the agency says it takes, and then take him to court for that.

[ASB]

I would be interested to hear of a case where a contract has been breached and reparation made and the contract has continued thereafter.
Legally you're probably correct, but in the real world would it happen?
If OP f*cks off because of a (claimed) breach in the contract by the other party, would they want him back after making whatever reparations are allowed for in the contract?
(And yes, once you've actually done work not in the contract it's a bit late to claim that you shouldn't have done it (homologation in Scottish law, I don't know if it's the same in English law))

It's more common than you'd think. Have a look at the bath spa project. Or in our line all those outsourcing deals for EDS etc. Compensation payments for breaches have been made and it's still continuing.

In terms of the OP a possible scenarios is:-

He walks. Client then claims breach and sues him for the cost of obtaining a replacement. OP counter claims, claiming same sum because it was thier breach that caused him to walk.

It could very easily go either way, but unless OP has served formal notice of his intentions and given chance for recompense (i.e. provide the contracted for work) the court would look a little unfavourably on those actions.

If OP lost he is not back in, but is out of pocket for the cost charged to obtain his replacement.

Of course we haven't really consider the agent overly in this. It's the client would be suing the agent and the agent the OP. They may well want to add their lost commission on for good measure.

In English law the equivalent of homologation is probably an implied term - i.e. as a result of actions/circumstances.

edit: typed at the same time as expat it would appear.