Stuck between 3 companies - need legal advice

[WordIsBond]

I think that's the case. (b) are bluffing. When there is no documented contract, then there is an implied verbal contract and in my case that was, 'I work as XXXXX and I will receive XX amount per day'.

In future, get a written contract so you don't end up with XX-£50 per day. Or not get paid for your last two weeks, which might happen in this case.

(a) can probably sue (b), that's for them to sort between them. But that leads on to question, can (b) sue me in this because they may have to pay (a) for their loss which was due to me leaving and joining another company?

Of course (b) can sue you. Anyone can sue anyone. Whether they get laughed out of court and have to pay costs might be another question. They've got no basis to sue you that I can see. I am not a lawyer, however. But that would be silly. "We're suing you because we just got sued by the people you had a contract with because you did something that your contract didn't forbid and is perfectly legal." (a) created this by not having a written contract with you with a handcuff clause. (b) created this by not having a handcuff clause in their contract with (c). As my American friends would say, they can go whistle Dixie. You can tell them you may have to take advice about illegal restraint of trade.

Besides, (c) did not persuade me to join them in first place, I decided to quit (b) and issued official notice to (a), as a courtesy I let (c) know that I won't be here next week, and that's the first time the spoke about working for them. Does that change anything?

No, it changes nothing. If you'd gone to the board of (c) and said, 'My exceptionally hot wife will sleep with every one of you guys if you'll take me on direct,' it wouldn't change anything. It might affect your marriage and their view of you as a professional but it wouldn't affect your right to work direct for them and their right to engage you to do so. It doesn't matter whose idea it was.

You live in a mostly-free country. You can work for who you want to. The only reason you couldn't would be if you've agreed a contract restricting it. You've not done that, apparently. If there's a hidden piece of paper with your signature on it then everything I'm saying here is void, the wording of that contract would drive this discussion, assuming its provisions are legally enforceable. Absent that piece of paper, or proof that you agreed verbally not to do so (like a recording), you are free to work for (c).

Without proof that you've agreed to restrict your right to trade freely, they can't restrict it just because it hurts them. That's all.

[Paralytic]

I'm surprised no-one else has pointed this out: a contract can exist and be legally enforceable without it being written down or signed.

It would obviously a lot harder for (a) and (b) to prove anything, however. Did you have any discussions with representatives of either where other people were present?

PS. Who else finds the whole "I decide to stop working with (b) and ONLY THEN did (c) approach me about me going direct" a bit contrived?

[WordIsBond]

I'm surprised no-one else has pointed this out: a contract can exist and be legally enforceable without it being written down or signed.

That's why I said this:

Absent that piece of paper, or proof that you agreed verbally not to do so (like a recording), you are free to work for (c).

PS. Who else finds the whole "I decide to stop working with (b) and ONLY THEN did (c) approach me about me going direct" a bit contrived?

Probably, but it's irrelevant if there's no contractual handcuff.

[Andy Hallett]

From reading this your commercial relationship is only with 'A'. Assuming they have provided no restrictive covenants in written form that you have agreed to, then I suspect you have nothing to worry about.

[northernladuk]

From reading this your commercial relationship is only with 'A'. Assuming they have provided no restrictive covenants in written form that you have agreed to, then I suspect you have nothing to worry about.

Yes he has. He hasn't agree to a rate, termination clause, payment schedules and if he'll get paid at all.

The lack of documentation might help around restrictive covenants (but I doubt it) but it means he's got non of the good stuff he wants either.

Good luck getting any money out of them that they owe him at the end.

[WordIsBond]

Yes he has. He hasn't agree to a rate, termination clause, payment schedules and if he'll get paid at all.

The lack of documentation might help around restrictive covenants (but I doubt it) but it means he's got non of the good stuff he wants either.

Good luck getting any money out of them that they owe him at the end.

I don't know why you doubt that lack of documentation will help around restrictive covenants. If there is no documentation, there almost certainly is no restriction (unless, as said, they can prove it was agreed verbally).

You are right that he may have to fight to get his final payment from them. But there, he CAN prove there's an agreement because he's been invoicing them and they've been paying. Unless they can prove that the agreement was terminated previously, they are likely going to have to pay. He might have to talk to Safe Collections, though.

[northernladuk]

It just doesn't sound right but I'll take note because everyone says the same.

Don't forget either of the parties can still threaten legal action and the client drops his offer cause its too risky.

[WordIsBond]

Don't forget either of the parties can still threaten legal action and the client drops his offer cause its too risky.

Indeed. But if there's no handcuff in the B/C contract that's not likely.

[Andy Hallett]

Yes he has. He hasn't agree to a rate, termination clause, payment schedules and if he'll get paid at all.

The lack of documentation might help around restrictive covenants (but I doubt it) but it means he's got non of the good stuff he wants either.

Good luck getting any money out of them that they owe him at the end.

His question was:

“Can someone please help here whether I can be sued and scared away to not join a good employer?”

For which my answer was, I wouldn’t have thought so. As you say, everything else could be a car crash.