Reply to: signing the contract

[ratewhore]

None other then Elan/Manpower of course...

Very odd. I've worked through Elan before and this never came up...

[expat]

They also have 100s of contractors who have accepted the terms and conditions, and you're the first one to challenge them, 100s of contractors who are paid 300 years after invoicing and you are the first to ask for one month....

[MPwannadecentincome]

Add a clause to the contract which states that this contract is only valid when signed by both parties.
Also state that any works carried out without a signed contract will be performed under the terms of your normal business contract at your normal day rate. Send them a copy of your normal terms and outrageous day rate.

Not a good idea.

I think there is a principle in UK law that says in the absence of a contract signed by both parties it is the LAST communication (written unless other communication can be proven) that takes effect and that is what the court will judge on.

So if you sign and return the contract and do not hear from the agency again then the contract should stand in court. If the agency sends correspondence back trying to renegotiate the contract then you have to respond to that otherwise their written communication may override what you signed in the contract!

[scooterscot]

And it is despicable of the agency to pressurise you with this. Name please.

None other then Elan/Manpower of course...


They even changed their IP clause based on my recommendation, which was a rather weak 2 sentence affair. PCG provided me with a water tight contract covering the matters of IP rights, which I use in most of my direct business.

They say we'll have to contact the legal team etc... always, I think their legal team must have walked out of the cotton fields yesterday.

[ratewhore]

And it is despicable of the agency to pressurise you with this. Name please.

It's probably the twat who phoned me on the landline at my client site to see if I was looking for a new gig...

[NotAllThere]

...
Upon contacting them they said they've got 100's of contractors on their books without an agency signed contract and I was one of a few who insisted on both parties signing the contract?! ....

They also have 100s of contractors who have accepted the terms and conditions, and you're the first one to challenge them, 100s of contractors who are paid 300 years after invoicing and you are the first to ask for one month...

It's the first excuse agents use. "Well, nobody else asked/Complained/is worried..."

Totally irrelevant of course.

[expat]

Upon contacting them they said they've got 100's of contractors on their books without an agency signed contract and I was one of a few who insisted on both parties signing the contract?!

That would get my back up. I don't see the relevance: if you want a signed contract (a normal part of business), then it does not matter a jot how many other people do not want one. It's not Ask The Audience: the agency's other contractors do not get to vote on whether you do business without a contract.

And it is despicable of the agency to pressurise you with this. Name please.

[ratewhore]

In all my years I've never seen this.

No. Neither have I. Who is it btw?

[scooterscot]

You missed the point...the agency wants you to sign the contract first, as stated above. Pretty standard business practice.

If you are that bothered, go see them in person and sign at the same time.

I've always known rather its always been my experience the service provider signs the contract first, as you say. In this particular instance the customer made no provision for signing the contract nor provided a copy to keep.

Upon contacting them they said they've got 100's of contractors on their books without an agency signed contract and I was one of a few who insisted on both parties signing the contract?!

In all my years I've never seen this.

[expat]

AFAIW neither party has to sign the contract for its T&Cs to come into effect once you start. Once you commence the contract and the agency begin to do their part both parties have agreed to the T&Cs by definition.

AFAIW?

[neilmcl]

AFAIW neither party has to sign the contract for its T&Cs to come into effect once you start. Once you commence the contract and the agency begin to do their part both parties have agreed to the T&Cs by definition.

[The Lone Gunman]

Add a clause to the contract which states that this contract is only valid when signed by both parties.
Also state that any works carried out without a signed contract will be performed under the terms of your normal business contract at your normal day rate. Send them a copy of your normal terms and outrageous day rate.

[Crossroads]

You missed the point...the agency wants you to sign the contract first, as stated above. Pretty standard business practice.

If you are that bothered, go see them in person and sign at the same time.

[scooterscot]

No.

They might quite like it: if they don't sign it, then you have comitted to something in writing, and they have not, at least not in writing.

It is normal for the buyer to send out contracts to the supplier to sign first; but then they should sign one copy and return it to you.

That's what I thought... This is a big agency too, I'd thought they'd have known better.

[expat]

Under what circumstances would an agency not have to sign a contract?

I've been asked to sign a contract sent to me yet the agent has not. I ask why and the hyena (she makes a lot of noise for nothing) on the phone said: "We don't have too"

Do agents have some special pardon that makes them exempt from signing an agreement? Every contract I've signed since being a contractor has been signed by both parties - I'm confused.

No.

They might quite like it: if they don't sign it, then you have comitted to something in writing, and they have not, at least not in writing.

It is normal for the buyer to send out contracts to the supplier to sign first; but then they should sign one copy and return it to you.