Anyone been in this (tulipe) situation?

[original PM]

Yeah often 2 happens because they see the agency doing no ectra work for 3 months extra fees.

However it is just naive of client co to not understand thats how it works.

[clearedforlanding]

Yes, depending on how reasonable it is.

Someone will be along to tell you that it's unreasonable because the agency aren't showing a loss and therefore they would never win a case - Andy Hallett posted the other day about how his agency has fought that and won.

In fairness, Andy - who works for a group that supplies me, would seriously have to consider the opportunity cost of playing this card. It's only a click on the SAP Red Book to remove a supplier.

[vetran]

you will do it if the Client pays Agency A the money they want from you upfront & you get written confirmation you have been released.

otherwise stay as you are or walk away Rene.

[SueEllen]

Yes, depending on how reasonable it is.

Someone will be along to tell you that it's unreasonable because the agency aren't showing a loss and therefore they would never win a case - Andy Hallett posted the other day about how his agency has fought that and won.

Everything depends on the wording in the contracts and who has the better legal advisor.

[rl4engc]

It depends how long the time period is.

It's a f(x) of individual contract length(s) with upper and lower bounds.

[TheFaQQer]

5) Contact between ContractorCo and AgencyA has a clause about ContractorCo not working for ClientCo in any capacity for <time period> unless <lots of clams> are paid by ContractorCo to AgencyA

Any thoughts?

Is (5) enforceable?

Yes, depending on how reasonable it is.

Someone will be along to tell you that it's unreasonable because the agency aren't showing a loss and therefore they would never win a case - Andy Hallett posted the other day about how his agency has fought that and won.

[WTFH]

It depends how long the time period is.
Also everything is negotiable.

[rl4engc]

1) ContractorCo contract with ClientCo, via AgencyA
2) End of contact coming, ClientCo happy with ContractorCo, not happy with fees of AgencyA
3) ClientCo wants to use AgencyB who they've worked with before
4) Wrangling between ClientCo and AgencyA
5) Contact between ContractorCo and AgencyA has a clause about ContractorCo not working for ClientCo in any capacity for <time period> unless <lots of clams> are paid by ContractorCo to AgencyA

Any thoughts?

Is (5) enforceable?