Reply to: Misrepresentation in "selling" a contract?

[Old Greg]

Plus, for the 2019-20 tax year only, each settlement comes with a free bottle of Oude Joris Max 120 IPA, which can be doubly expensed and fully qualifies for the VAT Retail Carousel Scheme.

FTFY

[jamesbrown]

That's how the revised HMRC compliant QC recommended Oude Joris Max 120 scheme works, but via the Dutch Antilles legal system. Every time an invoice is paid to the Ltd, then you sue your Ltd which settles for damages out of court.

Plus, for the 2019-20 tax year only, each settlement comes with a free bottle of Oude Joris Max 120 IPA, which can be doubly expensed and fully qualifies for the VAT Retail Export Scheme.

[Old Greg]

No. He might sue his own LTD....

That's how the revised HMRC compliant QC recommended Oude Joris Max 120 scheme works, but via the Dutch Antilles legal system. Every time an invoice is paid to the Ltd, then you sue your Ltd which settles for damages out of court.

[WTFH]

Liability doesn't need a contract - there just happen to be a lot of them around in this context; none of which has any real bearing on the case.

Has a solicitor given you in writing a document which says "none of the contracts have any real bearing on the case", or is that your opinion?
Have you shared all the documentation you have with the solicitor and responded to the myriad of questions they will have had from studying them?
Have you written to your agent with your complaint and have they responded in writing?

A couple of tips:
If you end up having to ask multiple solicitors to get an answer close to what you are looking for, then it's not particularly viable, and the one who may give you a positive response either doesn't have many of the facts or will have worded their response so carefully that you think it says one thing when it really doesn't.
If you are using a solicitor who is "no win, no fee", or is charging you a low rate (under £200 per hour) but with a high completion fee, then you may want to look elsewhere. When push comes to shove, the client will have access to solicitors as well, and then it won't be pretty.
If your case goes all the way to court and you do not win, or you reject an offer made by the client, then you will most likely be liable for their legal costs as well as yours.

[BR14]

No. He might sue his own LTD....

This thread has now looped in on itself.

looped in? - it's thrashing mate.

there'll be a page fault soon.

[Lance]

That advice seems to be littered with might, may, could and many other wooly statements that do nothing more than entice you in to putting your hand in your pocket. If you pay up, they look at it and say, you've little chance of winning don't bother, are you going to sue them for selling you a duffer?

No. He might sue his own LTD....

This thread has now looped in on itself.

[northernladuk]

That advice seems to be littered with might, may, could and many other wooly statements that do nothing more than entice you in to putting your hand in your pocket. If you pay up, they look at it and say, you've little chance of winning don't bother, are you going to sue them for selling you a duffer?

[Whumpie]

I spent some time composing my post, during which you changed your mind and wrote several others.

I've now spent some of my valuable time going through and deleting a couple of posts and editing others.

Now, hopefully you'll take the advice given - the only people you had a contract with was the agent. The only one worth pursuing is the agent.

Going after the end client "on behalf of" the agent - you'll find that the agent is keener to keep the client than to keep you.

Ok, I see this point and it's pretty constructive. I expect that it will be one of the complexities. But the lawyer was briefed on this and was of the opinion that the liability is clearly with the end client and that the law allows me to take action directly upon them as the people who have caused the damage. The agent doesn't need to be involved. Liability doesn't need a contract - there just happen to be a lot of them around in this context; none of which has any real bearing on the case.

Hopefully we won't need to find out - but that's the advice I've been given, anyway.

[Whumpie]

I spent some time composing my post, during which you changed your mind and wrote several others.

I've now spent some of my valuable time going through and deleting a couple of posts and editing others.

Now, hopefully you'll take the advice given - the only people you had a contract with was the agent. The only one worth pursuing is the agent.

Going after the end client "on behalf of" the agent - you'll find that the agent is keener to keep the client than to keep you.

First things first: thanks for the editing; that's really appreciated. This forum may be anonymous, but I don't like naming and shaming - especially as this client really doesn't deserve it. They've done something misguided and naughty; they've not stabbed a puppy.

[jmo21]

I think you should go for it now!

[WTFH]

Ok, now just for a minute let's be serious. I've redacted the name but you are repeating it, deliberately, in the public domain. For both of our sakes, please go and overwrite it. Seriously. Argue all you like about the post, but repeating the client's name in your posts is a really bad idea.

I spent some time composing my post, during which you changed your mind and wrote several others.

I've now spent some of my valuable time going through and deleting a couple of posts and editing others.

Now, hopefully you'll take the advice given - the only people you had a contract with was the agent. The only one worth pursuing is the agent.

Going after the end client "on behalf of" the agent - you'll find that the agent is keener to keep the client than to keep you.

[Whumpie]

...and he's now being told he needs to put his hand in his pocket. Up until now all his legal "advice" has been free and will have been made in such a way that it has plenty of get out clauses.

He needs deep pockets and if he wants to get anywhere, he's going to have to pay.

And he needs to be going after the right business. If he's chasing the end client because of a contract they had with the agent, then he is a third party in the case. His own contract with the agent may well have clauses in it about discussing the contract with the client. I'd be surprised if he's seen the contract between the client and the agent.

When I went legal on an agent all those years ago, firstly I made sure that I put nothing in public that could come back and bite me. Secondly I got a solicitor involved who dealt with business contracts. Thirdly I paid for a lot of advice up front to make sure it was worth pursuing. Fourthly I settled including my >£10k legal costs. And finally I made sure there were no clauses in the settlement, so I was able to advise others on here (and elsewhere) to avoid that agent.

Ok, now just for a minute let's be serious. I've redacted the name but you are repeating it, deliberately, in the public domain. For both of our sakes, please go and overwrite it. Seriously. Argue all you like about the post, but repeating the client's name in your posts is a really bad idea.

[WTFH]

Isn't it the agent that you are supposed to be going after? You've not contractual relationship with the end client

...and he's now being told he needs to put his hand in his pocket. Up until now all his legal "advice" has been free and will have been made in such a way that it has plenty of get out clauses.

He needs deep pockets and if he wants to get anywhere, he's going to have to pay.

And he needs to be going after the right business. If he's chasing the end client because of a contract they had with the agent, then he is a third party in the case. His own contract with the agent may well have clauses in it about discussing the contract with the client. I'd be surprised if he's seen the contract between the client and the agent.

When I went legal on an agent all those years ago, firstly I made sure that I put nothing in public that could come back and bite me. Secondly I got a solicitor involved who dealt with business contracts. Thirdly I paid for a lot of advice up front to make sure it was worth pursuing. Fourthly I settled including my >£10k legal costs. And finally I made sure there were no clauses in the settlement, so I was able to advise others on here (and elsewhere) to avoid that agent.

[northernladuk]

Yes! Here's some dancing bananas as a particular niceness!

Sue me.

[Whumpie]

Oh, being nice to me now?

Yes! Here's some dancing bananas as a particular niceness!