- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Excessive contractual obligations
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Excessive contractual obligations"
Collapse
-
Stipulate that the Pimp Director gives a personal guarantee in case the Agency goes under leaving YourCo with unpaid invoices.
-
Originally posted by eek View PostQDOS are fine for IR35 things, I wouldn't personally use them (again) for overall contract reviews...
Even if a way through this could be agreed; the thought of a client attempting such unfavourable terms from the off is worrying. Has anyone else had this come up and pushed back or even agreed to such terms??
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by LondonManc View Post
Just thought QDOS would be a better option first given they've probably had sight of many of these sorts of clauses in the past and helped remediate them.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostI seem to remember suggesting a lawyer in my very first post. That one was just to encourage the OP to do so...
Just thought QDOS would be a better option first given they've probably had sight of many of these sorts of clauses in the past and helped remediate them.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostI seem to remember suggesting a lawyer in my very first post. That one was just to encourage the OP to do so...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostHow could you provide a substitute with that clause in it? I would argue it destroyed any other RoS clause within the contract.
I'd whizz the contract straight off to QDOS and see what they make of it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Cirrus View PostYes.
I first saw these 30 years ago. I've assumed all contracts are like that but don't remember checking recently.
The problem here is the company signs the contract but the company is not a trustworthy partner. If anything goes wrong the contractor can make the company bankrupt. So to make the contract have any teeth it needs to target an entity that can't just walk off.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ThisIsNotNormal View PostThis one would is direct to client (my ltd is the Consultancy) but yes, not favourable terms and should I supply a substitute, what worker would want to take on that risk!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by eek View PostYou want a lawyer to check it and get all offending clauses removed but I would be running away from that contract as rapidly as I could - if the consultancy is pulling tricks like this in the contract what is working for them like?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NotAllThere View PostIt's a contract. You haven't signed it. Negotiate. Expecting the limited liability of your company to be swept aside is a step too far. I'd tell them to stick it. (Politely draw their attention to the fact that it's not possible for you to sign that clause, and if they insist, then, reluctantly, you'll have to walk away and they'll have to find someone equally qualified but more stupid).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ThisIsNotNormal View PostHas anyone come across anything similar where a consultancy agreement requires the actual Workers, in addition to the Consultancy, to bind themselves personally to all terms of the Agreement?
I first saw these 30 years ago. I've assumed all contracts are like that but don't remember checking recently.
The problem here is the company signs the contract but the company is not a trustworthy partner. If anything goes wrong the contractor can make the company bankrupt. So to make the contract have any teeth it needs to target an entity that can't just walk off.
Leave a comment:
-
You want a lawyer to check it and get all offending clauses removed but I would be running away from that contract as rapidly as I could - if the consultancy is pulling tricks like this in the contract what is working for them like?
Leave a comment:
-
It's a contract. You haven't signed it. Negotiate. Expecting the limited liability of your company to be swept aside is a step too far. I'd tell them to stick it. (Politely draw their attention to the fact that it's not possible for you to sign that clause, and if they insist, then, reluctantly, you'll have to walk away and they'll have to find someone equally qualified but more stupid).
Leave a comment:
-
Excessive contractual obligations
Hello all,
I’d be interested to know others’ views on some proposed contract terms -
I am the sole director of a limited company through which I provide IT services as per a normal contractor model. A new client has presented me a contract with the usual definitions i.e. the client is ‘The Client’, the ltd company is ‘The Consultancy’ and I (or a substitute) would be ‘The Worker’.
The contract explicitly states that all of the terms of the contract are not only direct undertakings and agreements between the Client and the Consultancy but also between the Client and the Worker.
Should the Consultancy fail to be able to provide services or meet obligations, all terms of the agreement transfer from the Consultancy to the Worker, including indemnities, which actually could extend beyond the required £1M PI Insurance; any shortfall being made up from the private resources of the Consultancy/Worker.
My limited company has PI Insurance but I have never heard of a Client/Consultancy agreement imposing all terms of the contract on the Worker as well. Also, I’d imagine this would make providing a substitute impossible in any practical sense.
Has anyone come across anything similar where a consultancy agreement requires the actual Workers, in addition to the Consultancy, to bind themselves personally to all terms of the Agreement?
All best!
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: