Reply to: Agency contract clause

[Fred Bloggs]

You've obviously never met anyone whose been involved in a lengthy legal dispute or know accountants and solicitors who work for large companies.

Large companies have a special fund for legal fees.

If the smaller company ignores this and pursues a large company, then the larger company uses every legal technical trick in the book to drag the case out for years.

Couldn't have put it better myself. In the UK you get the justice you can afford. End of story I'm afraid.

[oracleslave]

You've obviously never met anyone whose been involved in a lengthy legal dispute or know accountants and solicitors who work for large companies.

Large companies have a special fund for legal fees.

If the smaller company ignores this and pursues a large company, then the larger company uses every legal technical trick in the book to drag the case out for years.

You are John Grisham and I claim my 5 free bestsellers.

[SueEllen]

Why?

If they owe you money and you have no hope of doing business with them again, what have they got to lose?

tim

You've obviously never met anyone whose been involved in a lengthy legal dispute or know accountants and solicitors who work for large companies.

Large companies have a special fund for legal fees.

If the smaller company ignores this and pursues a large company, then the larger company uses every legal technical trick in the book to drag the case out for years.

[tim123]

Show me an agency that will sue one of the worlds largest drugs companies. And I'll show you an idiot.

.

Why?

If they owe you money and you have no hope of doing business with them again, what have they got to lose?

tim

[Fred Bloggs]

The size of the company is completely irrelevent, if the clause is technically enforcable.

tim

Show me an agency that will sue one of the worlds largest drugs companies. And I'll show you an idiot.

The poster may not be in a situation where my proposition applies but it does happen exactly the way I said.

[tim123]

This issue is client driven, yes? I have had a situation where the client (a very large blue chip drugs co) decided to get rid of its dozens of agencies UK wide and consolidate with just 2 agencies. All contractors were issued a new contract by their new agency and everyone was happy. The agencies who lost out were presumably told that they stood no chance of redress against such a large client co. ?

The size of the company is completely irrelevent, if the clause is technically enforcable.

tim

[Fred Bloggs]

This issue is client driven, yes? I have had a situation where the client (a very large blue chip drugs co) decided to get rid of its dozens of agencies UK wide and consolidate with just 2 agencies. All contractors were issued a new contract by their new agency and everyone was happy. The agencies who lost out were presumably told that they stood no chance of redress against such a large client co. Maybe your client can act in your case leaving you the innocent party?

[Emily]

Will look into that, thanks!

[Ardesco]

Did you check the opt in/out angle?

If they are opted in the clause is not legal and they can't come after either of you no matter how well it is written.

[Emily]

I got this checked out by our legal beagles and they said because the 6 month clause was reasonable, not only would our contractor face court but so would we and the end client, if the agency decided to go after us. Not worth the risk.

The clause should read 'The consultant must not work for the client directly or indirectly for 6 months after the end of the contract unless we, the agency, perform really badly whereby the consultant has the option to ditch us'.

Ah well...

[Emily]

Unfortunately the best written law has horrific grammar that doesn't mean a huge amount to people not in the legal profession.

They should make it a law to write laws with perfect grammar. You'd have thought it would be important as grammar can completely change the meaning of a sentence e.g. Eats shoots and leaves.

I know I am opening myself up for an analysis of my poor grammar skills now!

[Ardesco]

It's difficult to know how they are going to react though isn't it?! The contractor we want has had a nightmare with the agency so you just know it's that sort of agency that will be shortsighted and go after him for a short term gain.

You wouldn't believe how badly the clause is written though, the first line is so grammatically poor that it is barely legible! Hopefully, this will be in our favour.

Unfortunately the best written law has horrific grammar that doesn't mean a huge amount to people not in the legal profession.

[Emily]

One EB I was dealing with told me at one stage "we'll be annoyed if you go direct, but at the end of the day, we'll need you at some stage in the future so will wish you the best of luck". I know a couple of people who did this, and true to his word, they were wished the best of luck.

It's difficult to know how they are going to react though isn't it?! The contractor we want has had a nightmare with the agency so you just know it's that sort of agency that will be shortsighted and go after him for a short term gain.

You wouldn't believe how badly the clause is written though, the first line is so grammatically poor that it is barely legible! Hopefully, this will be in our favour.

[TheFaQQer]

One EB I was dealing with told me at one stage "we'll be annoyed if you go direct, but at the end of the day, we'll need you at some stage in the future so will wish you the best of luck". I know a couple of people who did this, and true to his word, they were wished the best of luck.



(It was strange that both sets of brakes failed at the same time though....)

[DodgyAgent]

I have yet to see any agency successfully sue a contractor for this. Many threaten but to be honest all they can sue for is loss of margin, and over 6 months they will be advised that it becomes restriction of trade.