Contract Tie-in clause Agency taken over

[Wanderer]

Do you think I'm bound by the handcuff clause?

Did you opt out of the agency regulations? If you didn't sign an opt out then the clause is not valid and you are free to do as you please.

If you did opt out (which you probably shouldn't have done) then did you do it in writing, separately from other paperwork and before your CV was sent to the client? If not then the clause is unenforceable.

Failing all that, a 12 month restriction is (in my opinion) excessive and you may be able to argue restraint of trade if it ever came to court (which it probably won't).

My advice is to speak to the client, generally it's not what you want to do it's what the client is willing to do. If they are willing to engage you direct or via a different agent then go right ahead. Don't tell the old agent though.

[MarillionFan]

At the end of the day the contract is between the contractor and X Ltd. If X Ltd no longer exists and has been bought by Y Ltd, then this has no bearing on the contract unless it is explicitly stated within the contract (which I doubt it is).

As already said, I would go direct. The only issue is if the agent at the new company starts being shirty, at which point tell them to take a running jump

[TykeMerc]

The only thing that could be a problem is if they start pestering the client to the extent he doesn't want anything to do with the situation and moves on to someone else.

That's the only thing I would be concerned about too.

As others have said 12 month clauses are a farce and pretty much only there to scare you. I'd be inclined to go for it direct and if the agency comes to you play the "I had no idea you were agency XYZ reborn" dumb look card.

[northernladuk]

12 months is way too long. Standard tends to be 6 months. I would go direct to the client and just keep my head down. It’s unlikely the agency will find out and even then they would be on shaky ground trying to enforce a 12 month handcuff clause..

Just MHO

This is correct from what we have seen on these forums in the past. 12 months is unenforceable as it is breaches your right to be able to work or something along those lines. Whatever the exact reason they won't get away with 12 months.

At the end of the day though the contract isn't worth the paper it is written on unless they take it legal. They can throw their teddies out of the cot and cause a bit of an uproar but unless they are going to take it to court there is nothing much they can do. The only thing that could be a problem is if they start pestering the client to the extent he doesn't want anything to do with the situation and moves on to someone else.

[badger7579]

12 months is way too long. Standard tends to be 6 months. I would go direct to the client and just keep my head down. It’s unlikely the agency will find out and even then they would be on shaky ground trying to enforce a 12 month handcuff clause..

Just MHO

[prozak]

Hi All,

Just interested on anyones opinions on the following situation...

I worked with a client through an agency until about 5 months ago. The contract had a 12 month tie-in clause (usual handcuff clause - i.e. if you return to that client within 12 months it must be through the agency).

I am now considering returning to work for the end client. During the 5 months that have elapsed, the agency has now been taken over, i.e they no longer exist under the name with whom I signed the contract.

Do you think I'm bound by the handcuff clause? i.e am I obliged to work through the agency that has taken over the original agency - or am I free to work directly with the end client?

Thanks for your input!

You still have the original contract you are bound by it.

One agency taking over another does so for a reason.... they keep all goodwill, contracts etc etc etc..... otherwise what is the point of the takeover?

[Support Monkey]

Surely the contract was with the previous named agency not the new one.

you could try and find out if the newly named agency still have dealings with the client.

to be honest i would just go direct and not worry (how will they find out) but then it depends how you feel about taking a risk

[eek]

The client still exists so you are going to be bound by the terms of that contract.

[Arthritic Toe]

Hi All,

Just interested on anyones opinions on the following situation...

I worked with a client through an agency until about 5 months ago. The contract had a 12 month tie-in clause (usual handcuff clause - i.e. if you return to that client within 12 months it must be through the agency).

I am now considering returning to work for the end client. During the 5 months that have elapsed, the agency has now been taken over, i.e they no longer exist under the name with whom I signed the contract.

Do you think I'm bound by the handcuff clause? i.e am I obliged to work through the agency that has taken over the original agency - or am I free to work directly with the end client?

Thanks for your input!