Cheeky Clause in the Schedule

[TheFaQQer]

Seems fairly reasonable. Your contract is to deliver a defined set of deliverables and that can be done by one person so they have set the budget/expectation at one person.

When another piece of work comes up it will require another contract that will need one person. No problems that going through your company.

That clause is about that piece of work, not your company overall.

Assuming that the contract is a time and materials (or time hire) basis, then I agree.

If the contract is fixed price, then you need to remove the clause as there may be times when you need to throw extra bodies at the project to get it done in time.

[jamesbrown]

I haven't either but in my mind conditions in a contract is an agreement, not control. The whole contract could be said to be control if you go down that line. D&C is how the individual carries out work out, not what you have agreed with your LTD in the contract IMO.

I would be interested in other opinions on this.

That's exactly my feeling. Control in the contract matters insofar as it (does not) lead to D&C of how the work is routinely performed by the contractor, not about what was agreed upfront between the two companies about deliverables and logistics. However, I also don't see why this clause should be that important to the client and can probably be negotiated out.

[northernladuk]

I've no idea who wipro are so no, I've no idea what would happen. Infosystems, the client? I dont care what will happen so long as my ltd co and me are protected from any comeback of IR35. If there's a clause in the contract that B&C cant get removed or amended or one I dont like, Im quite prepared not to sign the contract.

IMO, as stated, I consider the clause of specifically stating only one body shall be provided is clear D&C although you may disagree. Im not saying the contract should say my co should be able to provide 10 bodies (or however many I feel). Im saying having the clause in stating one body is D&C and limits my co's ability to introduce another body if I wanted to.

I have never had a contract that says only one body may fulfill the contract.

I haven't either but in my mind conditions in a contract is an agreement, not control. The whole contract could be said to be control if you go down that line. D&C is how the individual carries out work out, not what you have agreed with your LTD in the contract IMO.

I would be interested in other opinions on this.

[BolshieBastard]

Yer right, contract like that drops on Wipro, Inofsys's table what do you think will happen? No way will a client sign a contract that will allow you carte blanche to send bodies to site without their approval, even to extent they will say none by default and negotiate upwards.

Why would you need it looking at for IR35? That is company direction not individual direction. Remember the contract is with the company, not the individual and IR35 is for individuals.

I've no idea who wipro are so no, I've no idea what would happen. Infosystems, the client? I dont care what will happen so long as my ltd co and me are protected from any comeback of IR35. If there's a clause in the contract that B&C cant get removed or amended or one I dont like, Im quite prepared not to sign the contract.

IMO, as stated, I consider the clause of specifically stating only one body shall be provided is clear D&C although you may disagree. Im not saying the contract should say my co should be able to provide 10 bodies (or however many I feel). Im saying having the clause in stating one body is D&C and limits my co's ability to introduce another body if I wanted to.

I have never had a contract that says only one body may fulfill the contract.

[northernladuk]

Hmmmm. I normally agree with NLUK but have to disagree here.

I'd want that clause taken out. Seems too much like control and direction. If my ltd co has secured the contract, it should be up to my co to decide how many 'bodies' it needs to do the work, not the agent \ client.

Besides, I may want to introduce one of my son's to contracting and that clause would deffo prevent it on this contract. Of course, the amount my ltd co would receive for the work would be the same.

Get rid imo or better still, have the contract reviewed by Bauer & cottrill and see what they say about it.

Yer right, contract like that drops on Wipro, Inofsys's table what do you think will happen? No way will a client sign a contract that will allow you carte blanche to send bodies to site without their approval, even to extent they will say none by default and negotiate upwards.

Why would you need it looking at for IR35? That is company direction not individual direction. Remember the contract is with the company, not the individual and IR35 is for individuals.

[BolshieBastard]

Hmmmm. I normally agree with NLUK but have to disagree here.

I'd want that clause taken out. Seems too much like control and direction. If my ltd co has secured the contract, it should be up to my co to decide how many 'bodies' it needs to do the work, not the agent \ client.

Besides, I may want to introduce one of my son's to contracting and that clause would deffo prevent it on this contract. Of course, the amount my ltd co would receive for the work would be the same.

Get rid imo or better still, have the contract reviewed by Bauer & cottrill and see what they say about it.

[Peter Loew]

Seems fairly reasonable. Your contract is to deliver a defined set of deliverables and that can be done by one person so they have set the budget/expectation at one person.

When another piece of work comes up it will require another contract that will need one person. No problems that going through your company.

That clause is about that piece of work, not your company overall.

Excellent interpretation.

[northernladuk]

Seems fairly reasonable. Your contract is to deliver a defined set of deliverables and that can be done by one person so they have set the budget/expectation at one person.

When another piece of work comes up it will require another contract that will need one person. No problems that going through your company.

That clause is about that piece of work, not your company overall.

[Peter Loew]

"Number of consultants that can be provided at any one time: One"

I'm thinking of asking them to remove this before I sign, as there's always the hope of getting a couple of guys in through your Ltd.

I've never seen this clause before. What about you guys?

P