Reply to: Expenses NOT included

[SueEllen]

Yes, but does this appear to be the case here (and is pretty unlikely to be the case in most situations). It seems to me that it's more likely someone just being dumb?

The person is just "uninformed" not "dumb" as if they weren't they would realise in situations where a written contract follows a verbal agreement, unless it can be proved otherwise the written contract will take precedence. Mainly because people don't remember facts correctly.

[b0redom]

It's not quite that dumb.

A contract may well have a clause that is unenforceable and/or not legal. If a contract dispute gets to court, then such a clause will be struck out. If there enough, then the entire contract can be void.

Yes, but does this appear to be the case here (and is pretty unlikely to be the case in most situations). It seems to me that it's more likely someone just being dumb?

[BolshieBastard]

This thread is funnier than Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes!

[NotAllThere]

"piddles"

[pimped]

Expenses not included

It's not quite that dumb.

A contract may well have a clause that is unenforceable and/or not legal. If a contract dispute gets to court, then such a clause will be struck out. If there enough, then the entire contract can be void.

I agree. That is how it works.

So it is not clear how agency workers are of the opinion that it doesn't matter what they say to get someone to sign a contract, it is a binding contract once signed. That is just not the case.

Please be aware, I am not tiddy kat or piddles or any other combination. My name is "Pimped".

I have no idea who these other characters are, although they seem to be popular?

[NotAllThere]

Just because you sign a contract does not make it legal.

Are you on crack? That's exactly what it means. If it didn't, what's to stop me saying, "Oh I know I signed a contract stating I'd work for £x00 / day, but what I actually intended was that was for every 3rd Saturday during a leap year. My intended day rate is £x000."

It's not quite that dumb.

A contract may well have a clause that is unenforceable and/or not legal. If a contract dispute gets to court, then such a clause will be struck out. If there enough, then the entire contract can be void.

[SteelyDan]

Absence of *** though**** or mention of court.

***Yes, but if you remember he was severely lambasted by NLUK for that, at the time - & rightly so imho***

[TheFaQQer]

Question marks when there aren't questions? Doggedly repeating the same point over and over. Hmmm

Absence of *** though**** or mention of court.

[SteelyDan]

In my view, this thread has been more than thrashed to death; move on, the original questions have been answered.

As for the pimped related stuff (which has no real relevance and only muddies the waters), well start your own thread so at least then it's safely isolated.

[mudskipper]

I wondered exactly the same thing.

However, the style seems somewhat different.

Question marks when there aren't questions? Doggedly repeating the same point over and over. Hmmm

[TheFaQQer]

pimped, do you like kitty cats?

I wondered exactly the same thing.

However, the style seems somewhat different.

[Ignis Fatuus]

Absolutely agree. And this works both ways, so if the sharks erm sorry agent is not quick enough to get a contract out then that is their problem and their responsibîlity.

However, overall I do not agree with the current Agent business model which appears that unqualified indivuals make a few telephone calls and expect to manage qualified individuals and take a 20-40% cut of hourly rate for the duration. It certainly is a contractor / worker beware story. What do these sharks actually contribute to the contract?

Pimped

The client is the buyer of whatever it is that agents contribute, why not ask them what they get from agents? Since some people on here will be hiring managers, perhaps they might comment?

I must also point out (spitting, because I detest having to work through agents) that the worthwhile sense of "qualified" for an agent would be "qualified as an agent", not "qualified as a contractor".

[mudskipper]

pimped, do you like kitty cats?

[pimped]

Expenses not included

Moral of the story: verbal contracts are not worth the paper they are written on.

Forget all the sales patter from the agent in a shiny arsed suit read the contract before it's signed, ask for clarification (in writing) of anything that is unclear before you sign it. The trick is that agencies are very reluctant to front up with a contract at an early stage and then pressure you to make a quick decision/signoff. They wait till you are hooked before they throw in a contract with some nasty one sided stuff in it.

Absolutely agree. And this works both ways, so if the sharks erm sorry agent is not quick enough to get a contract out then that is their problem and their responsibîlity.

However, overall I do not agree with the current Agent business model which appears that unqualified indivuals make a few telephone calls and expect to manage qualified individuals and take a 20-40% cut of hourly rate for the duration. It certainly is a contractor / worker beware story. What do these sharks actually contribute to the contract?

Pimped

[Wanderer]

I agree. They accepted an offer, which was formally made in writing by giving a contract. This is what was accepted, by signing the contract.

Moral of the story: verbal contracts are not worth the paper they are written on.

Forget all the sales patter from the agent in a shiny arsed suit read the contract before it's signed, ask for clarification (in writing) of anything that is unclear before you sign it. The trick is that agencies are very reluctant to front up with a contract at an early stage and then pressure you to make a quick decision/signoff. They wait till you are hooked before they throw in a contract with some nasty one sided stuff in it.