Contract Renewal and Cutting Out the Agent – hidden terms and conditions??

[BlasterBates]

Apparently, the courts do take a sympathetic view if an agency abuses their position with regard to a handcuff clause.

if, when contract renewal time comes up, an agency says that you must accept a lower fee to do the same job for the same client, or that you should do two jobs for the same money, just say that you will go work directly for the client if the agency insists. When the recruitment consultant at the agency threatens you with the restrictive covenant, just cite this article and warn that the consultant is out of line.

I would make a point of making it clear to the agency that you will continue on the same terms and conditions.

[SlipTheJab]

If it's not in the contract it doesn't exist. Core work conditions stipulated only in Email footers? IANAL but I think a Judge would laugh that off. And you shouldn't have told the agent just a I'm not extending would have sufficed!

[PipTheWhip]

Thanks for your responses everyone- given me a bit to think about!

[NCOTBAC]

Go to google and type in 'handcuff site:forums.contractoruk.com'

Tons of reading in there. In a nutshell the agent can prove loss if you do this so even if the clause isn't written well he's got a very strong case. Handcuffs exist for precisely this type of thing.

[ladymuck]

Anyway the real question you need to ask is will the agent find out?

Bit late there - they told the agent and that's how the 'additional' items came to light.

That said, you could chance terminating the contract and starting with the client direct and hope the agent doesn't notice.

[ladymuck]

Get your client to check their liability too, SE raises a very good point there.

I guess there is an argument that all the T&Cs you should be bound by ought to be in the contract and not in email footers. Depends on whether you have the appetite to see it in court.

Handcuff clauses can be successfully enforced. They're deemed non-enforcable in some circumstances such as the duration is longer than the contract, or it would actually stop you earning a living - that's usually in closely related industries where they try to stop you moving to a competitor and taking all that juicy client knowledge with you. In your case, I can see a handcuff clause being enforceable. Find out how long it is and decide if you can afford to bench yourself for that duration before going direct.

[SueEllen]

Anyway the real question you need to ask is will the agent find out?

[SueEllen]

You are reading what you want in to our posts. Generally badly written restrictive clauses are non-enforceable but doesn't mean there aren't decently written ones.

Also the agent being the middle man if he's sensible would put restrictive clauses on your client's side as well.

[PipTheWhip]

Hi folks,

I need a bit of advice please...

I'm renewing my contract with my client and in doing so my intention is to take a direct contract with the client - cutting out the agent who got me the role and has been sat in the middle of the contract for the last year...

Motivations for doing so include that the 'gentleman' running the agency is incredibly rude / aggressive... and attempted to enforce a rate cut on me as part of extending the contract in order to increase his own margins over the coming year.

There is nothing in the contract that I signed that prevents this - no clause around introductions etc, however as soon as I informed him (the client was very keen I told the truth about what was happening…), he told me that I am bound by additional terms and conditions.

The t's and c's are indeed referred to in small pint in his email footer (it says that they are available on request), however I have never explicitly been made aware of them, nor have I been given the opportunity to review or agree to them. Furthermore the page on their website where these are supposed to live is blank 'awaiting update'.

The t's and c's do indeed state the normal guff about not poaching contracts and contractors etc - however I was wondering what this forum's advice was on the legality of being held to ‘implied’ terms and conditions?

Given most seem to think the non-competition clauses aren't enforceable anyway it seems that the same would ring true for terms and conditions you've never seen?