Reply to: Not able to give notice

[zippy.mini]

These terms are from IBM - Experis and I believe many contractors are on with these terms

They are the same, yes, but my client is not IBM this time.... And it's not just Experis who have these same terms for IBM, it's the same if you work for the other side of IBM through Hays too...

[WilsonPiper72]

These terms are from IBM - Experis and I believe many contractors are on with these terms

[LondonManc]

Real contractors know how to do deal with these situations. Not a problem...

Indeed. Contract terms added or don't accept. Simple as that.

[Contreras]

Like most other things, I would assume the specific wording of the contract is what's important here. For example, the contract could easily say:

1. You will be paid a daily rate of £x.
2. You do not have any right to terminate the contract.
3. Client reserves the right to terminate with 1 weeks notice.
4. Client reserves the right to alter the daily rate as stated in Clause 1 at any point throughout the contract without affecting the validity and enforceability of any other clause of the contract.

If you agree to that, you're at their mercy.. Same as when a certain clause is found to be legally unenforceable but all other clauses remain valid.

The other clauses remain valid but the contract will still have been breached.

Edit: oops, yes didn't spot 4. if that's contrived to prove a point then yes, technically correct, but the contract could be judged unfair if it went to court.

[northernladuk]

7 months no notice. hmmm. What if it turns out to be tulipe?

Real contractors know how to do deal with these situations. Not a problem...

[psychocandy]

7 months no notice. hmmm. What if it turns out to be tulipe?

All for no notice for 3 months. Hey ho but not 7 months.

I've had gigs that at the beginning sounded brill, local, good rate, then after a few months I realised they were a bunch of tossers. Would have been gutted to have been stuck there for another 5 months.

And as for the rate cut thing. No way - its a new contract take it or leave it deal. Cant see how they can pay you say £500 then a week later say £1 a day and your stuck here now.

[d000hg]

I'd hope so but I hear that a particular ClientCo aren't even offering you the chance to tell them to go forth and multiply. Guess it's more a case of going in on a higher figure and once you breach a rate that you don't like, don't extend or renegotiate the rate on next extension. That's certainly the way I'd play them.

They can say that, but I don't think it would stand up in court unless your original contract says they can change the rate as they see fit. Which would be stupid.

[billybiro]

It can also say:

5. ClientCo reserves the right to have it representatives stick a fist in the YourCo director's butt at any given time

Anyone stupid enough to sign a contract with 1) and 4) deserves 5)

And some may even pay good money for No. 5

[garethevans1986]

After some advice from a legal fella, he recommended always having a "no-fault" termination clause in all contracts.

GE

[sal]

Like most other things, I would assume the specific wording of the contract is what's important here. For example, the contract could easily say:

1. You will be paid a daily rate of £x.
2. You do not have any right to terminate the contract.
3. Client reserves the right to terminate with 1 weeks notice.
4. Client reserves the right to alter the daily rate as stated in Clause 1 at any point throughout the contract without affecting the validity and enforceability of any other clause of the contract.

If you agree to that, you're at their mercy.. Same as when a certain clause is found to be legally unenforceable but all other clauses remain valid.

It can also say:

5. ClientCo reserves the right to have it representatives stick a fist in the YourCo director's butt at any given time

Anyone stupid enough to sign a contract with 1) and 4) deserves 5)

[SpontaneousOrder]

They were - I seem to recall someone on here complaining about it a few months ago.

It wouldn't stand unless there were more specific details laid out. I can't see any judge seeing the contract as being fair and reasonable if it meant they could hire you at 500 per day for 2 weeks, and then cut it to minimum wage for the rest of the contract without you being able to leave.

[Scruff]

I have contracted with HAL and also had no notice period by MyCo in the contract, whereas they had an option. I requested for them to terminate the contract, by exercising that option, since I no longer felt that MyCo could could not continue with its contract, due to change in their working practices. That should normally be sufficient to trigger any provisions on their behalf and allow YourCo to move on...

[billybiro]

I would treat a rate cut as a change to the terms of the contract, thus allowing me to terminate.

Is this not the case?

Like most other things, I would assume the specific wording of the contract is what's important here. For example, the contract could easily say:

1. You will be paid a daily rate of £x.
2. You do not have any right to terminate the contract.
3. Client reserves the right to terminate with 1 weeks notice.
4. Client reserves the right to alter the daily rate as stated in Clause 1 at any point throughout the contract without affecting the validity and enforceability of any other clause of the contract.

If you agree to that, you're at their mercy.. Same as when a certain clause is found to be legally unenforceable but all other clauses remain valid.

[LondonManc]

That's fine, you can walk away. I inferred from LondonManc's post that no notice period AND rate cuts were linked in some way.

They were - I seem to recall someone on here complaining about it a few months ago.

[cojak]

Either way, that's not usually the way it happens.

They tell you they are terminating if you do not accept a rate reduction.

That's fine, you can walk away. I inferred from LondonManc's post that no notice period AND rate cuts were linked in some way.