Reply to: Accepting an Offer by Email

[gingerjedi]

We've all been offered contracts that get pulled at the last minute, do you do anything about it or do you just move on? The agent isn't going to place a contractor with a client if they don't want to be there.

[Turion]

Plumber conumdrum

Come on - it's time for a plumber analogy.

If a plumber agreed by email to take on a task lasting x weeks for y money when he had not received any official documentation on what was actually expected he deliver, could he be held accountable if he decides to back out?

[b0redom]

But you're still all missing the point. You're supplying a service. You can just choose to be unavailable for whatever the notice period is, and still be OK within your contract (depending on the T+Cs).

IANAL etc.....

[zara_backdog]

You could word something like "It is my intention to accept the role offered subject the T&C’s as defined in the forthcoming contract"

[Turion]

You've still got it wrong about this implied contract stuff. If you have an account such as share dealing etc that uses telephone or email authorisation, you must have first signed an agreement with that organisation that gives your agreement to the T & C's.

In this case the OP has signed no such agreement with the agency to accept theirs T & C's and hence permit binding agreements by phone/email.

It's laughable to suggest that a knod and wink by email means he's accepted a role when it's not been officially offered (no contract sent)

[Ardesco]

You're talking ballpats. A work contract is nothing like a split second share trade. The OP's so called acceptance is meaningless. I've done same before to keep the agent interested, before dumping the gig before it's started. The most they do is make noise.

Do some research and be surprised.....

In most cases the agents won't bother to take it anywhere (which I have said above) but the fact that the agent can't be bothered to try and enforce the agreement doesn't make it any less legally binding.

If I decided to go and do something illegal tomorrow, there is a good chance I would get away with it, however that doesn't suddenly make it legal or right to do it and that argument wouldn't get me very far if i ever ended up in court......

[Turion]

You have accepted and an e-mail is seen as legally binding. If I remember correctly this was brought into law because of banks doing quick buys and sells on the stock market where there is not enough time to check through all the T&C before the contract has been formally agreed, and it has already been through the courts with a precedent set.

If your e-mail had said I accept it in principle, but will not commit until I am happy with the T&C then you would be fine. As it is the agent could take you to court and will win.

Of course the chance that the agent will go that far is another matter entirely.

You're talking ballpats. A work contract is nothing like a split second share trade. The OP's so called acceptance is meaningless. I've done same before to keep the agent interested, before dumping the gig before it's started. The most they do is make noise.

[Ardesco]

I can see that, if an agent was feeling particularly vindictive, then a renewal accepted in this way could be enforced as a continuation of the previous contract, but an entirely new one, where the client has only just made an offer, and no contracts have been looked at either way? Not a chance.

nope can't do that, if there is a contract in place and you continue working when the contract has finished while awaiting for a renewal the T&C are automatically assumed to be identical to the original ones in the eyes of the law. The agent can try and change them but you can quite legally refuse and insist on the T&C staying the same. If it goes to court you will win, again there is a precedent for this.

[Ardesco]

The agency will have standard T&C's which the courts will accept as the ones that you have agreed to. You may not know what they are, but that's tough titty, you shouldn't have agreed to take the role in writing without seeing them.

Lets face it, it's not unusual for people to sign contracts without reading all the T&C's so that argument will not hold much water in court (when was the last time you read all 10 pages of the T&C for a credit card application, or all the terms when installing a new computer program?).

[NotAllThere]

Without a contract and terms and conditions, any acceptance has a very strongly implied "subject to terms and conditions and contract". An "officious bystander" (and us lot are GOOD at that) would say "Subject to terms and conditions and acceptable contracts of course", to which agent and contractor would say "yes of course". Forget it. Move on.

btw - Verbal contracts are as entirely binding as written ones. Just harder to prove.

[deckster]

If your e-mail had said I accept it in principle, but will not commit until I am happy with the T&C then you would be fine. As it is the agent could take you to court and will win.

But the key point is what has been accepted. The offer of a role, that is all. No contract has been seen or agreed, so you cannot be held to terms which don't exist. It's not even like there are standard T&Cs that apply to all contracts - the details vary from role to role and client to client, so there really isn't anything that a court could use as a guideline here. Not that, as you say, in practice it would ever get that far.

[Ardesco]

You have accepted and an e-mail is seen as legally binding. If I remember correctly this was brought into law because of banks doing quick buys and sells on the stock market where there is not enough time to check through all the T&C before the contract has been formally agreed, and it has already been through the courts with a precedent set.

If your e-mail had said I accept it in principle, but will not commit until I am happy with the T&C then you would be fine. As it is the agent could take you to court and will win.

Of course the chance that the agent will go that far is another matter entirely.

[deckster]

As I have suggested, the best thing for the OP to do is to ask someone who is qualified whether there is a contract in place or not, rather than a bunch of unqualified strangers. I may well be wrong, but it's going to take more than some telling me that it's "rubbish" to convince me of that.

I am happy to accept that an email can form a binding contract. However I do not see how a quick 'yes mate, I accept their offer' can be legally binding on terms and conditions - specifically in this case, notice periods - that have yet to be discussed or agreed.

I can see that, if an agent was feeling particularly vindictive, then a renewal accepted in this way could be enforced as a continuation of the previous contract, but an entirely new one, where the client has only just made an offer, and no contracts have been looked at either way? Not a chance.

Even if there is a contract in place, then how could a court possible determine what is and isn't included? No, you're being obtuse here and you know it

[TheFaQQer]

Rubbish.

I've accepted offers previously then had to tell the agent sorry, Im not proceeding. In no instance (3 that I can remember) resulted in anything more than a comment from one agent which was 'Ouch!'

Stop making a mountain out of a tiny mole hill.

I'm not trying to make anything out of anything, except to provide my thoughts on the situation. I'm convinced that there is a contract in place - unless a lawyer is going to tell me otherwise, someone here saying "I've never had a problem" is not going to persuade me that I am wrong here.

The fact that you haven't had any problems with doing it is good (for you, although not so good for an agency or the client). However, unless there is an expert opinion as to why this doesn't amount to an acceptance of a contract, then simply saying "I got away with it" is not good advice.

As I have suggested, the best thing for the OP to do is to ask someone who is qualified whether there is a contract in place or not, rather than a bunch of unqualified strangers. I may well be wrong, but it's going to take more than some telling me that it's "rubbish" to convince me of that.

It's a much easier legal case to argue that Denning MR was right in his summing up of Smith v. Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 than BastardB was right in his thread on CUK...

[BolshieBastard]

The film producer is wrong though.

An offer can be defined as "an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed", the "offeree".

Whether two parties have an agreement or a valid offer is an issue which is determined by the court using the Objective test (Smith v. Hughes). Therefore the "intention" referred to in the definition is objectively judged by the courts. In the English case of Smith v. Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597 the court emphasised that the important thing is not a party's real intentions but how a reasonable person would view the situation. This is due mainly to common sense as each party would not wish to breach his side of the contract if it would make him or her culpable to damages, it would especially be contrary to the principle of certainty and clarity in commercial contract and the topic of mistake and how it affects the contract.

So, would a court believe that a contract is in place when the OP accepted the offer? (The wording of the offer, and the acceptance thereof would be important here). If a reasonable person would assume that there was a contract in place, then that is how the court should decide.

The case reference for which terms and conditions would be in place is Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd [1979] WLR 401.



If they admit acceptance, then they are acknowledging that they have accepted the offer - not the smartest thing to so if you are then going to say that you aren't accepting after all. You may be able to argue that there has been no meeting of minds, therefore no acceptance.

Rubbish.

I've accepted offers previously then had to tell the agent sorry, Im not proceeding. In no instance (3 that I can remember) resulted in anything more than a comment from one agent which was 'Ouch!'

Stop making a mountain out of a tiny mole hill.