Reply to: Contract clause headache

[SueEllen]

Must try to move that. Problem is that It would suit perfetly in between contracts, thats all.. I was just wondering if there would be any example cases out there, and whether it was all blakck and white

Nope.


It's called the English legal system.

It is not black and white but shades of grey.

Oh and six months may be regarded as a restriction of trade.

Even my legal friends only have 3 months in their contacts.

[joulupukki]

Must try to move that. Problem is that It would suit perfetly in between contracts, thats all.. I was just wondering if there would be any example cases out there, and whether it was all blakck and white

[pmeswani]

So what's this "opt in" and "opt out" stuff then? Anyone care to explain?

Do a search on the forum for the words opt in and opt out. You will find out what it means.

[pmeswani]

I recently started a new contract at a previous client, after a two month break. This time the client approached me directly, and wanted to avoid using an agent to keep costs as low as possible so we came to a compromise over rate.

Now my previous agent has contacted me stating that my previous contract had a 4-month tie-in, where I would have to work through them if I went back. I'm trying to avoid doing this as the cut would have to come out of my day rate.

Has anyone had a similar experience? What can the agent do if the client (and myself) tells them they don't them involved?

Thanks in advance!

Ask the agent how much would it cost to break the clause. Speak to the client and ask them if they are prepared to pay the fee as they approached you directly. If they refuse, turn the contract down on financial and morale grounds.

[Smurficus]

My cooling off period is set at 6 months, and now my ex client wants me back for 8 days only after 5 months. What to do?

Can it be delayed until 6 months has passed?

[jkoder]

So what's this "opt in" and "opt out" stuff then? Anyone care to explain?

[Hogan]

Thanks for that response - very useful :-) I'll take a look at that link in more detail too.

[NickNick]

There is a ton of stuff on here, but the crux of the matter is that if you were introduced to the client before signing the opt out then it's not valid. And many experts say that an interview counts as an introduction.

This from Roger Sinclair of EGOS for example
http://www.contractoruk.com/004187.html

The regulations say that for an opt-out to be valid, both the individual and his company have to notify the agency before they are supplied or introduced to the client. In addition to this, and since April last year, the agency also has to notify the client that the individual has decided to opt-out before the agency introduces or supplies the services of that individual to the client.

This is an aspect of opting out that is very often overlooked by agencies, meaning that I repeatedly see agencies’ attempts to opt-out of the regulations which are not valid because they find the individual or the company has given notice to opt-out after they have had the first interview with the client. Clearly when they’ve had the first interview with the client, they have been introduced to the client. It may be that the worker/company was introduced to the client even before then when, for example, identifiable personal details were given. So it follows that a lot of attempted opt-outs are invalid.

[Hogan]

Interesting .. how exactly does this work? Is there anywhere I can find more details on this?

[Sockpuppet]

There was a deal of coercion when I signed the original contract to opt-out - I believe that otherwise, the tie-in period would have been 8 weeks, thus avoiding this issue ...

I might have some emails still lurking with this ...

If you met the client before you opted out then you are opted in by default even if you wanted to opt out.

[Hogan]

There was a deal of coercion when I signed the original contract to opt-out - I believe that otherwise, the tie-in period would have been 8 weeks, thus avoiding this issue ...

I might have some emails still lurking with this ...

[NickNick]

Were you opted in or out? Or perhaps more importantly were you opted out when you really should have been classed as opted in? That would make a difference to the restriction of trade clause. (or whatever its called these days)

[Hogan]

Well, the agent has sources in place I think .. he's put in several people here over time, although most of them are now gone. He must have been doing a fair bit of snooping I think ... very sneaky.

How does a B2B arrangement change this? Can this render the contract clauses invalid, or is this simply wishful thinking??!

Is there any workaround - e.g. not invoicing for say two months until outside of the tie-in period ??!

[pleomax]

Now my previous agent has contacted me stating that my previous contract had a 4-month tie-in, where I would have to work through them if I went back. I'm trying to avoid doing this as the cut would have to come out of my day rate.

Ok what I would like to know is who did you upset to blab to your previous agent about you going direct?

Also is the client approached you direct WTF has it got to do with them as it is a B2B arrangement.

Or do I have my bolishe contractor hat on?

Pleomax (Almost typed my real name there again)

[joulupukki]

doh..

In similar situation myself.

My cooling off period is set at 6 months, and now my ex client wants me back for 8 days only after 5 months. What to do?