Reply to: Am I bound to a notice period if I'm still in my first month.....

[SueEllen]

If they are demanding you work your notice, why would you taking a holiday make any sense?

It means the contractor would not have to work some or all of the days of the notice period.

Obviously this won't work as holidays are agreed with the client and you can p*ss them off but the agency can refuse not to pay you.

[d000hg]

thanks for the response.......am I able to take a holiday then if I work 2-3 weeks notice and have a holiday for the remainder?

If they are demanding you work your notice, why would you taking a holiday make any sense?

[Wanderer]

1) I have handed in my notice within the first month, due largely to being sold on a job that was not what I expected

Yeah, sure but what's the real reason you are leaving? I mean, why leave a job without giving any notice after 3 weeks? Has another job come up or are you leaving so you can do nothing and earn nothing? That's not such a good thing to do at the moment.

2) I actually started on the client site before I had actually signed the contract stipulating one months notice be given

Had you seen the contract before you started? If so, then by starting the work you have accepted the contract offered to you. A signature is not required for a contract to be binding.

I mean, I agree, it's silly to start working without a signed contract in place, but surely if the agency has simply delayed sending you their terms (for example by wanting to send an agent to meet you on-site, as seems to be the case here), you can't be assumed to have agreed to them, or can you? Just wondering.

It depends on how they did it. If they sent the contract before work started and said they would meet the contractor on site to sign it and the contractor started work on delivering the contract then the contract has been agreed even though it's unsigned. Not to say that it couldn't be re-negotiated but the agency is under no obligation to make any changes.

If the agency presented the contract after the work was started then the agency is in a weaker position especially if no notice period or contract terms were explicitly agreed up front. In this case the two parties would have to consider what would be a reasonable notice period and this is wide open to argument.

Walking out on a contract is going to tempt the client/agency to withhold some or all of the payment due as "compensation". This will normally amounting to the exact amount they owe the contractor without consideration of the actual contractual losses incurred by either party.

Probably the best thing to do is for the contractor to sit down with the client and show them what the description of the job was and have a discussion about what they are actually being asked to do. If the client wants to renegotiate the job description after the contractor has started then it's up to the contractor to accept this if they choose to or negotiate a mutually agreeable exit plan.

[TheFaQQer]

So, what if it's not a case of the contractor having received but not yet signed the contract. I mean, what if there were no exact terms presented when he started on site?

I mean, I agree, it's silly to start working without a signed contract in place, but surely if the agency has simply delayed sending you their terms (for example by wanting to send an agent to meet you on-site, as seems to be the case here), you can't be assumed to have agreed to them, or can you?

Just wondering.

There are a few cases which are relevant to this: Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company, Butler Machine Tools v Excell-o, and possibly even Carlill v Carbolic Smokeball Company

Have a read up on acceptance in English law - Wikipedia is a good place to start, although as a quick book on the subject, the Nutshells guide to contract law got me through my degree

[northernladuk]

So, what if it's not a case of the contractor having received but not yet signed the contract. I mean, what if there were no exact terms presented when he started on site?

I mean, I agree, it's silly to start working without a signed contract in place, but surely if the agency has simply delayed sending you their terms (for example by wanting to send an agent to meet you on-site, as seems to be the case here), you can't be assumed to have agreed to them, or can you?

Just wondering.

But that is the whole problem, who knows what the situation is hence why it is a nightmare situation you want to avoid at all costs. It's so complicated I would guess only a lawyer could argue the answer to your last quesiton. The quick and dirty answer is if you work for them you accept their terms. I am sure you could argue that stance but it will cost you a lot of time and money, that could and should be easily avoidable.

I don't know the legal answer but don't ever intend to be in the position where I need.

[formant]

Well it is normally the last one seen or the terms discussed as mentioned and bearing in mind the standard approach is for us to sign their contracts they would have a slightly upper hand. If both of these are done on the phone then it is a matter of he says she says which can be a right pain in the arse... which is why you make sure you get one signed first.

So, what if it's not a case of the contractor having received but not yet signed the contract. I mean, what if there were no exact terms presented when he started on site?

I mean, I agree, it's silly to start working without a signed contract in place, but surely if the agency has simply delayed sending you their terms (for example by wanting to send an agent to meet you on-site, as seems to be the case here), you can't be assumed to have agreed to them, or can you?

Just wondering.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Please read the newbies guide to the right. You will find all the information you need -->

[Willapp]

Surely the important thing here is ensuring you get paid for the work you've already done? I'd be very concerned at cutting short the notice period (whether by invoking MOO or any other means) if the client/agency still owe you any substantial amount of money for unpaid invoices.

If you've been paid already or could afford to walk away without the money, then it's just a question of whether you risk damaging your reputation with the client and/or agency by walking away before the notice period has been completed - nobody can force you to carry on working there regardless of any contract terms (whether implied or explicit), but getting paid money you are "owed" could be a lot more difficult if you were seen to be in breach of any agreement, so that seems to be the fundamental decision here.

[TheFaQQer]

If your contract has a suitable MOO clause in it, then you are not obliged to accept any work that they offer.

I'd discuss it with the client - make sure that the client knows that the role isn't what you were expecting, based on the discussions you had with the agency. Since it's not what you thought it would be, then you may well be able to negotiate your way out.

Of course, by giving your notice already, you've missed the chance to do that.

[SueEllen]

thanks for the response.......am I able to take a holiday then if I work 2-3 weeks notice and have a holiday for the remainder?

The quicker you can get a replacement for your role the quicker you can leave the client.

[mudskipper]

Is it possible that some of your responses are fully automated by some relatively unsophisticated AI?

FTFY.

NorthernladUK Comment generator

But the boy does talk sense. Mostly.

[northernladuk]

OK I'll put my head on the fing block again:

in the absence of a signed contract, why is the OP bound by the terms that the agency had in mind, rather than the agency bound by the terms that the OP had in mind?

Well it is normally the last one seen or the terms discussed as mentioned and bearing in mind the standard approach is for us to sign their contracts they would have a slightly upper hand. If both of these are done on the phone then it is a matter of he says she says which can be a right pain in the arse... which is why you make sure you get one signed first.

Although a contract is supposed to be a legally binding contract, you would have to get a lawyer in to progress it that far, which no one ever does so at the end of the day it is all just an argument whatever it says on the paper... but if it says it you have something to point out which can help.

[Taita]

OK I'll put my head on the fing block again:

in the absence of a signed contract, why is the OP bound by the terms that the agency had in mind, rather than the agency bound by the terms that the OP had in mind?

Both parties are bound by the terms discussed and they appeared to agree between them. In the event of a dispute it comes down to evidence. If there is no acceptable/provable evidence neither party will get very far in seeking redress by fair means!

[AnonAgent]

In simple terms, the agency wouldnt need to pay you as they can count this as lost earnings. If you want to forego pay, then walk out.

My advice though is to miss out the agent and have a chat with the client, express your concerns and arrange an end date with him. No client is going to want a contractor on site costing them £500+/day when they dont want to be there. So its unlikely you will be there longer than a week.

[Ignis Fatuus]

By starting work you accepted whatever terms were on the table at the time, including the nature of the work. It doesn't matter that you haven't signed anything. So yes, you are bound by the terms of the contract.

OK I'll put my head on the fing block again:

in the absence of a signed contract, why is the OP bound by the terms that the agency had in mind, rather than the agency bound by the terms that the OP had in mind?