Reply to: £400 per hour???

[Taita]

Derisory damages? Not sure that's what you meant there.

Not what I meant.....fingers moving ahead of brain. Sorry. I was suggesting the plaintiff's action could be regarded as ridiculous and the Court may require the plaintiff to pay some of the defendant's costs.

[BlasterBates]

Verbal agreements are as legally binding as contracts, since both had agreed to 400 per day then that is the contract, and the 400/hour is a clerical error on the contract.

The first question the judge would ask you would be, "did you agree to 400/hour?". Now assuming you don't want to prejure yourself that would be the end of the story.

The best you could do is sue for damages based on the agents mistake, but that wouldn't be more than a postage stamp or a 2 minute telephone call.

[TheFaQQer]

Not exactly the same on a technical level but both could be could come under the same general heading of support/admin.

A non-techie would struggle to see the difference.

If you cannot justify the rate that you agreed, then you probably deserve the lower rate.

[psychocandy]

For exactly the same type of work within the last 3 years?

If you invoiced for the higher amount as agreed in the contract, it was paid and the agency comes back and said they made a mistake about the day rate then you can tell them to foxtrot oscar and it will be the situation TheFaQQer already posted.

Not exactly the same on a technical level but both could be could come under the same general heading of support/admin.

A non-techie would struggle to see the difference.

[riffpie]

I disagree. That is exactly what the legal system is about. The op's question is a leg pull surely?

If something like this landed in Court, the Judge's main task would be to determine the intention of the parties when the contract was made. The op would stand no chance of winning and may well have derisory damages awarded against him.

Derisory damages? Not sure that's what you meant there.

[Taita]

For argument's sake, where do you legally stand if you sign a contract with an obvious mistake in it which benefits one party, who then chooses to try and enforce that clause? The legal system is not known for it's common sense "clearly I meant something else" approach

I disagree. That is exactly what the legal system is about. The op's question is a leg pull surely?

If something like this landed in Court, the Judge's main task would be to determine the intention of the parties when the contract was made. The op would stand no chance of winning and may well have derisory damages awarded against him.

[SueEllen]

But its more within the realms than the difference between £40 and £400/hour.

I've had contracts closer to £100 and some closer to £800/day.

For exactly the same type of work within the last 3 years?

If you invoiced for the higher amount as agreed in the contract, it was paid and the agency comes back and said they made a mistake about the day rate then you can tell them to foxtrot oscar and it will be the situation TheFaQQer already posted.

[psychocandy]

No they are not. You are talking about the difference between a £100 a day and £800 a day. No way is that confusion in the realm of possibility.

But its more within the realms than the difference between £40 and £400/hour.

I've had contracts closer to £100 and some closer to £800/day.

[northernladuk]

Could it work the other way though? Dodgy agent offers contract £100/hour. Then 3 months down the line tries to say it was a mistake and it was £100/day.

The figures here are both within the realms of possibles....

No they are not. You are talking about the difference between a £100 a day and £800 a day. No way is that confusion in the realm of possibility.

[TheFaQQer]

Three months down the line, presumably, at least one invoice has been submitted and paid. If it's at the higher rate, they don't really have a leg to stand on do they?

As long as the first invoice wasn't fraudulent, then the contract would most likely be accepted via conduct (see Brogden's case)

[TheFaQQer]

Could it work the other way though? Dodgy agent offers contract £100/hour. Then 3 months down the line tries to say it was a mistake and it was £100/day.

The figures here are both within the realms of possibles....

You'd sue for the difference, showing the contract. You'd show the negotiations and any confirmation that you had around the role. You'd show the other roles that you have been engaged in, paying a similar amount of money. You'd show the roles that you were applying for at that rate.

The agency would need to show how they made a mistake to that magnitude, consistently throughout the recruitment process. The agent would be able to show how they corrected the mistake as soon as they were aware of it. They would show how they recruit other candidates for similar roles at the £100 a day rate. They would show why the contract should be cancelled.

The judge would decide who was owed what.

[riffpie]

Could it work the other way though? Dodgy agent offers contract £100/hour. Then 3 months down the line tries to say it was a mistake and it was £100/day.

The figures here are both within the realms of possibles....

Three months down the line, presumably, at least one invoice has been submitted and paid. If it's at the higher rate, they don't really have a leg to stand on do they?

[psychocandy]

You've not read that carefully, than



I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago:


The law is quite clear on this matter - if you know it is a mistake, and try to force the contract, then the other party has every right to repudiate the contract.

Could it work the other way though? Dodgy agent offers contract £100/hour. Then 3 months down the line tries to say it was a mistake and it was £100/day.

The figures here are both within the realms of possibles....

[psychocandy]

One for NLUK here. Admit that even I havent come up with something as brainless as this one?

OP - Seriously. As others have said, what do you think agency will do when they see that first invoice? Do you really think they'll pay it? Come on seriously.

At best, if it was me, I'd wind the agent up a little and tell them I was going to stick to it (just to upset them for a laugh!) but you've got to own up.

I had situation once where agency paid me one too many days (god knows how). They may never have noticed - who knows. But I told them and they said, they'd sort it next month. They didnt. So I told them again. Next month still not sorted. So I contacted them again and said I'm not telling you again now.

Unfortunately, they did sort it then. But if they hadnt I wouldnt have wasted more of my time if they couldnt be arsed. IMHO thats fair enough.

I had it once as permie too. Guy with same name as me. I had his £1000 referral fee or something. So I told payroll. He got his £1000 and they said next month it'll be sorted. As above, told them a few more times, they never did so I gave up. Left company few months later and kept the dosh.

I think in this case, it was more likely that the payroll clerk didnt want to flag it up as their error in the first place so it was easier to let it slide. Fine by me.

[titan]

And what would have happened if hypothetically they really were making that sort of offer (£400 per hour) and then the agency later tried to claim that it was a mistake and it was meant to be £400 per day?