Reply to: Contract terminated before start date - anything I can do legally?

[NotAllThere]

I think that there has been enough education for this thread.

Thread closed.

Quick look around and he's got form. Permaban.

[cojak]

I think that there has been enough education for this thread.

Thread closed.

[andrew142]

arrogant and unfazed...
Must be studying law. First week or second?

Unfazed yes. Studying law yes, on and off for many years especially related to my contracts. I have either settled or won all my claims so far both small claims and a multitrack claim for > £30K (though i settled for a good deal less). So who to listen to? The guy at the coal face or the talker?

[Lance]

I am educating you.

arrogant and unfazed...
Must be studying law. First week or second?

[andrew142]

So did you just come here to ask a question you didn't want an answer to?

Best of luck in your pursuit

I did not come here to ask you any questions. I am educating you.

[andrew142]

Nonsense. The client is perfectly entitled for the contractor to turn up each day and to be sent home because there's no work available. There is no breach because there is no work. Really, this stuff has been done to death for years and years.

It depends on whether there actually is no work to be done. If you have evidence, for example that there is work to be done but that the client is pretending otherwise as a pretext for not paying you, then you may well have a case. It is important to ask for evidence or ask the agency for an explanation of why the work situation has changed. If, for example, you know a fellow contractor still in the workplace and they tell you that there has been no diminution in the amount of work available, then you may have a valid claim.

[Fred Bloggs]

Oh the initial posts of a Gricer sockie - I will update my ignore list

Pretty much.

[eek]

Oh the initial posts of a Gricer sockie - I will update my ignore list

[Fred Bloggs]

So did you just come here to ask a question you didn't want an answer to?

Best of luck in your pursuit

I just responded again and shouldn't have. This new poster is just trolling the forum.

[Fred Bloggs]

You introduce the term 'mutuality of obligation.' But any claim would be for breach of contract. The concept of MOO would have no place and serve no purpose in a claim for breach of contract. The contract was terminated before the start date. So there could be a claim for losses arising from an invalid termination.

Nonsense. The client is perfectly entitled for the contractor to turn up each day and to be sent home because there's no work available. There is no breach because there is no work. Really, this stuff has been done to death for years and years.

[pr1]

So did you just come here to ask a question you didn't want an answer to?

Best of luck in your pursuit

[andrew142]

"failing to gain" is not the same as "lose"

If you worked those 30 days and they didn't pay you then yes, you have lost the value of 30 days work and could perceivably have a claim

If you did not work and therefore had opportunity to use those 30 days to earn money elsewhere, then you haven't "lost" anything

There is something called the 'duty to mitigate' your losses. So if you obtain work within the 30 days' period for example then you will have lost less money than if you do not secure a new contract. You do not have to claim for a fixed amount. You can claim for 'up to' the value of the 30 days. That way you can bring a claim before the 30 days have elapsed.

[andrew142]

"failing to gain" is not the same as "lose"

If you worked those 30 days and they didn't pay you then yes, you have lost the value of 30 days work and could perceivably have a claim

If you did not work and therefore had opportunity to use those 30 days to earn money elsewhere, then you haven't "lost" anything

That is not the way that 'losses' is conceived in the field of commercial law. Loss of expected value is comprehended at a fundamental level in commercial law. The basic principle is that if a party to a contract breaches it then the innocent party is entitled to be put in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. And the principle is predicated on the contract completing.

[andrew142]

if you go to a court other than the small claims court, then the agent will be able to claim their costs if/when they win. So their legal costs become yours.

IANAL / ANAY

That is correct. But if you are a litigant in person and you the party to the claim is your limited company, even if they win they have to wonder how much your company is worth since they will be very unlikely to recover more in costs than the worth of the company assets. That may well be the auction value of some office furniture and a few laptops. That is why they may well settle before the first hearing.

[andrew142]

Rubbish. There is no loss, there is no mutuality of obligation here. The client does not have to offer work. They could have started the contract and then each day said they had no work, so please go home. The only obligation on the client is to pay for work done to an acceptable standard, delivered on time. Repeated - There was no work, there is no loss.

You introduce the term 'mutuality of obligation.' But any claim would be for breach of contract. The concept of MOO would have no place and serve no purpose in a claim for breach of contract. The contract was terminated before the start date. So there could be a claim for losses arising from an invalid termination.