new contract but end client changed PSL

[doodab]

Agency 1 has said that "because we have had a good history" can I "give them today to see if they can run this contract for me.. By the way, What was the offered rate, role, contract length and location?"

I'm too busy so far today to reply..

Although I know who you are talking about and I have good relationship with them I'd not trust them not to try and get someone else in, so would think twice about telling them.

I don't know anything about it but you might find that Sweidsh law has something to say about handcuff clauses as well.

[kal]

Nooo! Don't give them ANY more information, it's none of their bloody business. Anything you do tell them may be used against you.

Fob them off by saying thanks very much but you've decided to take a different contract. Seriously, what value would they add? Nothing...

100% Agree, whats to stop them phoning up the client and telling them that you've refused to take the role unless you can go through them, there is still time for them to bugger things up for you... do what they do best, ignore their calls, emails etc.

[Wanderer]

Agency 1 has said that "because we have had a good history" can I "give them today to see if they can run this contract for me.. By the way, What was the offered rate, role, contract length and location?"

Nooo! Don't give them ANY more information, it's none of their bloody business. Anything you do tell them may be used against you.

Fob them off by saying thanks very much but you've decided to take a different contract. Seriously, what value would they add? Nothing...

[jmo21]

Agreed, you owe agency 1 nothing and they know it, don't see why they think they should continue to profit for doing nothing as you have done all of the running, good luck!

They don't "think they should continue to profit for doing nothing" - that is just their excuse they are telling the OP.

They WANT to profit from the OP.

Subtle difference.

[kal]

That's how I read it too. The latest is I have told agency 1 that I am not contractually obliged to work via them given as Swedish client has changed their PSL and I am not able to work via American software house. We've had a good run including multiple new contracts and negotiations that I myself have arranged and cut agency 1 in on due to contractual agreement. As the agreement no longer stands then I felt it only right to let them know what has changed.

Agency 1 has said that "because we have had a good history" can I "give them today to see if they can run this contract for me.. By the way, What was the offered rate, role, contract length and location?"

I'm too busy so far today to reply..

Agency 2 are drawing up the contract for me and it should be with me this afternoon to start on Monday.

Edit: gf chef is now starting to make holiday plans

Agreed, you owe agency 1 nothing and they know it, don't see why they think they should continue to profit for doing nothing as you have done all of the running, good luck!

[chef]

That's how I read it too. The latest is I have told agency 1 that I am not contractually obliged to work via them given as Swedish client has changed their PSL and I am not able to work via American software house. We've had a good run including multiple new contracts and negotiations that I myself have arranged and cut agency 1 in on due to contractual agreement. As the agreement no longer stands then I felt it only right to let them know what has changed.

Agency 1 has said that "because we have had a good history" can I "give them today to see if they can run this contract for me.. By the way, What was the offered rate, role, contract length and location?"

I'm too busy so far today to reply..

Agency 2 are drawing up the contract for me and it should be with me this afternoon to start on Monday.

Edit: gf chef is now starting to make holiday plans

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Wait, if you're restriction clause says:

the service provider will not (other than under a contract with the agency) provide services to the CLient, either during a contract, or within six months following the later of (i) introduction, and (ii) the end of the most recent contract;

And the client of Agency 1 is the US software co, then how are you caught by this if you're working for the Swedish bookcase maker through Agency 2? Agency 1's client was the US software co, not the Swedish bookcase maker.

The way your contract reads, they can only object to you working for the US software co. directly, nobody else. The only clause you had preventing you working for your new client was the clause between US software co. and your new client, which you have been released from.

[Wanderer]

Does agency 1 have any legal retribution if I am now living in a different country and also working via my newly setup swedish co. ?

They will do the usual bluff and bluster but I don't think they would bother taking it to court, to be honest. If they do start one then send them a whole pile of bumpf in Swedish and let them arse around getting it all translated.

They've had their cut now they can bugger off.

[Bellona]

Handcuffs can only be applied where the agent can prove loss. If agent 1 has no chance of getting any work from the client then there is no loss and no need for business protection so the handcuff won't stick. If agency1 is now not on PSL and they won't gain or lose anything else from the situation.

If they have no further business with the client then there is nothing to protect.

+1.
I think NLUK is right.
If your current agency and their client (the software house) have been removed from the PSL of the end client then where is the loss ?

[chef]

yes, you are correct it is regarding the handcuff from agency 1 and yes it does help.

thanks.

[northernladuk]

I didn't really read all this and digest it but let me throw a general comment in and see if that affects the situation. I assume this is about handcuff from agent 1. Handcuffs can only be applied where the agent can prove loss. If agent 1 has no chance of getting any work from the client then there is no loss and no need for business protection so the handcuff won't stick. You can't just restrict someones right to work just because you feel a bit cheesed off with the situation. You have to prove it will impact your business or revenue stream. If agency1 is now not on PSL and they won't gain or lose anything else from the situation.

A comment from this page says...

“Agencies must bear in mind that restrictive covenants must go no further than is reasonably necessary to protect their legitimate business interests as otherwise the covenants will be unenforceable. Defining what is ‘reasonable’ or not can involve complex considerations , as can ‘what is a legitimate business interest.’ A covenant that restricts a national sales director may not apply to a local sales representative, yet the agency may use the same clause. “

If they have no further business with the client then there is nothing to protect.

Does that help?

EDIT : Ugh.. Trying to pick through you post I don't think this will help. Sorry

Changing LTD, and whatever shouldn't affect the contract. They can still argue you are the person involved and the business changes around you are a sham. It's called 'Piercing the corporate veil'. Not sure how costly it is to fight and whether people really pursue these things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercin...corporate_veil

[chef]

Background:

I have worked self employed via Agency 1 for the last 8 years on and off, my last contract being me -> agency 1 -> large amercian software house -> swedish end client (well known for bookcases called billy) being a 3 monther extended and extended to 2 years which ended Dec 1st last year.

I have been aproached for a new contract for end swedish client however they have changed their internal workings and reduced the PSL list. I informed them I was under a tie in clause via agency and they are under a tie clause with software house preventing me from going direct for 6 months. After a few days they have come to an agreement with large amercian software house to release me from my 6 month tie in clause and have told me that I will be contacted by one of their in country PSL brokers (lets call them agency 2). Since arrving in the country I have setup a local Ltd equivalent and intend to work via that for the foreseeable future (for tax reasons).

It seems no one has told Agency 1 this. I have had a phone call from hriing manager of swedish client and they have offered me a 50% rate increase. I have forwarded the email i received from swedish client stating "swedish client to american software house have come to an agreement i am not tied in to software house for 6 months" to agency 1 when i was asked "whats the latest with the renewal, have you heard from end client, i am pushing this from my end". Agency 1 then replied with "it would be good to run through them (agency 2), what is the hiring manager at swedish client called, strangely our contractual clause is the same as large american software house when it comes to going direct".

So, my questions being, Agency 1 obviously wants their cut or to muscle in on the action, how would you approach this? I know what rate i have been offered from swedish client, i also know agency 2 charge 1.5% on top to bill swedish client. I am reluctant to reduce that rate to give a part to agency 1 when they have done nothing in terms of the 5 extensions and 2 new contracts i have secured with end swedish client over the last 2 years. Does agency 1 have any legal retribution if I am now living in a different country and also working via my newly setup swedish co. ?

I always had a very good working relationship with agency 1 and I did point out to swedish client that the old working relationship was what I was used to and contracted to. As they have changed their rules and come to an agreement with american software house would I still be tied in to me -> agency 1 contractual agreement?

contract between me and agency 1 reads:
"
Agency: <agency 1>
Service Provider: <me>
Client: <large american software house>
Working Address: <swedish bookcase seller>
...
Protection of Agencies Business
- Unless an Introduction or engagement is employment business and not 'opted out'
-- the service provider will not (other than under a contract with the agency) provide services to the CLient, either during a contract, or within six months following the later of (i) introduction, and (ii) the end of the most recent contract;
--the service provider will inform the agency immediately it becomes aware if, within 6 months following the later of (i) introduction by the agency to the client and (ii) th eend of the most recent contract, the client (other than through the agency) makes an offer of employment of engagement direct to any person introduced or who has provided services on the service providers behalf.
- subject to the above, a contract is not exclusive, the agency acknowledges that the service provider enters this contrct in the course of its business of providing services to its customers, and the service provider remains at liberty to alos provide services to third parties. It is the service providers responsibility to ensure no conflict of interest arises."