Reply to: My contract was terminated early...

[ratewhore]

I don't think he is rw (but he might be now ) else he wouldn't have got into the mess he's in at the moment...

Ouch - those nails have been sharpened since your pic was taken...

[cojak]

I don't think he is rw (but he might be now ) else he wouldn't have got into the mess he's in at the moment...

[ratewhore]

and don't forget - buy PI insurance, although I can tell you if you're in the infosec game (as I am) then check the fine print as not all insurers cover security specialists.

[Lucifer Box]

I was doing some post 2K3 migration support work which basically involved solving problems for a hashed up migration (I was not involved in the migration). I granted permission for a group to have access to their files (stored on a server) and their files only. The users were then able to work. Then a bit later on these users were unable to work again. Apparently they executed a script on the server to solve the file/folder security problems across the domain - which did not work. I went back up and granted them the permissions again. The next day they told the agency that I breached a security policy. But I dont think they even had a security policy, and even if they did, I wasn't shown it. The termination clause was immediate notice from their side and no notice from my side.

That's a bit sh1tty but there's no way the client is going to have you back and there's little point making a song and dance about it. Your contract says "instant termination, no notice or reason required" and that's what they've done. Go quietly and gracefully, send the agent an invoice for the couple of days you did, and chalk that one up to experience. Never, ever carry out network admin tasks without insisting on seeing the client's security policy. If they don't have one, tell them you require them to indemnify YourCo first.

Bad luck, but it sounds like you're better off out of there anyway.

P.S.
Don't sign a contract that enables you to be terminated at no notice without reason given if you're not going to be happy when that happens. These things are all negotiable with the agent and you should do so, especially given that YourCo had no right to terminate at all.

[cojak]

Hmm. Bit of a sh1t's trick pointing the finger at you when they did something worse. Still - did you ask about their security policy? You'd have been protected if you had and they said "no".

Asking about security issues is a bit of a 101 question when you're looking at granting access permission. The user's also commited an offense but have successfully deflected the blame onto you.

I think you might have to chalk this one up to experience/lessons learnt and all that.

And get yourself onto a BS7799 certification course.

Cojak: going though auditing as we speak...

[meanman]

what I did wrong

I was doing some post 2K3 migration support work which basically involved solving problems for a hashed up migration (I was not involved in the migration). I granted permission for a group to have access to their files (stored on a server) and their files only. The users were then able to work. Then a bit later on these users were unable to work again. Apparently they executed a script on the server to solve the file/folder security problems across the domain - which did not work. I went back up and granted them the permissions again. The next day they told the agency that I breached a security policy. But I dont think they even had a security policy, and even if they did, I wasn't shown it. The termination clause was immediate notice from their side and no notice from my side.

[Lucifer Box]

Yes, absolutely. But unless the fellow seeking advice is prepared to reveal what he did, there's not much advice that can be given.

[sb5spa]

contract

Indeed there is the issue of what he did wrong as even if there is no written contractual term there is an implied term that the contractor will be able to supply the contractual services to a reasonable standard. If he has truly cocked up then he is not only probably not entitled to be paid but he would also be liable in damages for any foreseeable losses suffered by the company.

[ratewhore]

Plus of course your contract will state the contractor has the skills to carry out the work to a professional standard. But then, it would also state that any substandard work will be recitified at the contractors expense so it may be worth trying to offer to rectify any mistake made to keep the relationship alive.

Devils in the detail of course...

[Lucifer Box]

Indeed, sp5spa. No one is saying the guy shouldn't be paid for work he has carried out or that there is no contractual nexus. Except, of course, if what he did is truly, truly bad and might lead to him being sued for damages, in which case going quietly and without a fuss would be the best option.

[sb5spa]

contract

A signed contract is not essential. The parties have acted in accordance with the terms of the written agreement by the contactor turning up to do the work and being allowed to do so. If the comapny had turfed him offsite when he first turned up denying that there was any contract in existance that would be different. There are two legal pricincipals involved here, the doctrine of part performance being one and the other being the right to be be paid in accordance with any contractual terms. If there are none then the contractopr is entitled to be paid on a quantum meruit basis, that is to say to receive payment for the value of the work he has actually completed.

[boredsenseless]

Methinks he got his cock out infront of the MDs wife and shouting 'Look at this beauty, you SLAG!"

I always thought a blatant lie was classed as blatant misconduct

[Lucifer Box]

Methinks he got his cock out infront of the MDs wife and shouting 'Look at this beauty, you SLAG!"

Oh well, he's defintitely got a solid case then. I thought it might have been something really bad like laying a log in his PM's in tray.

[MarillionFan]

What did he do wrong?

Methinks he got his cock out infront of the MDs wife and shouting 'Look at this beauty, you SLAG!"

[Lucifer Box]

It is long established precedent that if you turn up for work and the client allows you to work (whether that's Man Utd or a software house), then you have both de facto agreed the contract T&Cs as written. Of course, either party can refuse to work or allow the work to be done until the contract is signed.

For this reason, I'm generally happy to work without the client having signed the contract as long as I am happy with the T&Cs - depending on the job of course. Recently I was bidding on contract worth a little short of a million and if that's awarded not a second's work will be done without both parties having signed up.

Equally, I've worked for clients where, because the agent was inefficient, a renewal contract was not produced in time and the client preferred me to take a day of garden leave in order to protect their liability situation. The client, of course, insisted the agent pay me for that day out of their own pocket as punishment for cocking up the renewal.