Restrictive covenant

[Lance]

For now this question is theory.

until they get the evidence?

[cannon999]

until they get the evidence?

Nothing has happened yet, which is why I am asking.

[Lance]

Nothing has happened yet, which is why I am asking.

you need to consider...

what's in it for you? You're a business remember... There might be nothing, and that's fine I suppose, but what about the risks

breach of contract - you'll be doing that. For no business beneift you'd be willing to breach a contract with your supplier?

evidence - how likely are they to find out? Only you can speculate that. I figured that the guy I brought in was never going to be found out, but agencies are crafty buggers. Just a hint and they'll start asking questions.

loss of customer. This could cost you the contract. Unlikely but still possible.

getting your ass sued for the missing money. Make no bones about it... the agency will pursue you. If you're still onsite and making them money they won't pursue very hard, but they may replace you and then sue you. I had a good relationship with my agency aty the time so no problem and I even got a different contract off them later.

[northernladuk]

Contractor but why is there a difference?

Come on fella. You've got to apply some common sense and a bit of thought to this. You've got an agent on board who's job it is to supply contractors and get's paid to do it. They've worked hard to secure the engagement with the client to supply these services. If you are introducing a contractor you are bypassing the agent and affecting their revenue stream so they are gonna be pissed which is exactly why the clause is there. They probably aren't working with the client to supply permies so it's none of their business so there is a massive difference. Obviously if the agent is also the perm recruitment source then there is less of a difference but that isn't all that common.

Another question here though. How can a client take a contractor on directly if they have an agreement. Surely if you introduce someone to the client they will just tell them to go via agent anyway.

This isn't all that straight forward so you've got to work it out, not just fire off random questions.

If you can't understand the contract or the nuances of doing business in your environment you are best keeping well away from it.

[cannon999]

you need to consider...

what's in it for you? You're a business remember... There might be nothing, and that's fine I suppose, but what about the risks

breach of contract - you'll be doing that. For no business beneift you'd be willing to breach a contract with your supplier?

evidence - how likely are they to find out? Only you can speculate that. I figured that the guy I brought in was never going to be found out, but agencies are crafty buggers. Just a hint and they'll start asking questions.

loss of customer. This could cost you the contract. Unlikely but still possible.

getting your ass sued for the missing money. Make no bones about it... the agency will pursue you. If you're still onsite and making them money they won't pursue very hard, but they may replace you and then sue you. I had a good relationship with my agency aty the time so no problem and I even got a different contract off them later.

They won't be replacing me, that's 100%. I am not worried about any sort of loss of business situation here.

My understanding is that to get money out of the lawsuit here they would need to prove loss of income. How would they prove that they have lost out on income based on my recommendation? Since I am not getting anything out of it or any other entity - where is their loss? If there is a loss - how do they quantify that loss if the contractor in question would have never agreed to go through them? I think these are all pretty logical questions.

[northernladuk]

They won't be replacing me, that's 100%. I am not worried about any sort of loss of business situation here.

My understanding is that to get money out of the lawsuit here they would need to prove loss of income. How would they prove that they have lost out on income based on my recommendation? Since I am not getting anything out of it or any other entity - where is their loss? If there is a loss - how do they quantify that loss if the contractor in question would have never agreed to go through them? I think these are all pretty logical questions.

They are but the answers are very basic and appear to be completely passing you by.

The situation is becoming so unrealistic its hardly worth examining either. If the Clent can't or won't take the recommendation on directly they this chain of discussion is completely pointless.

[cannon999]

They are but the answers are very basic and appear to be completely passing you by.

The situation is becoming so unrealistic its hardly worth examining either. If the Clent can't or won't take the recommendation on directly they this chain of discussion is completely pointless.

Yet I haven't heard an answer yet? How do you quantify the loss of the agent in this case?

[northernladuk]

Yet I haven't heard an answer yet? How do you quantify the loss of the agent in this case?

Let me come off this call and I'll go back to basics and explain it all again from scratch.

[ladymuck]

Yet I haven't heard an answer yet? How do you quantify the loss of the agent in this case?

You need to know more about the contractual arrangements between the client and agency as well as your own contractual arrangements with the agency. You don't have visibility of this so you can't possibly know what claim the agency may have.

You are viewing this through a bubble that is centered on you but you are not the centre of the contractual chain.

[Lance]

They won't be replacing me, that's 100%. I am not worried about any sort of loss of business situation here.

My understanding is that to get money out of the lawsuit here they would need to prove loss of income. How would they prove that they have lost out on income based on my recommendation? Since I am not getting anything out of it or any other entity - where is their loss? If there is a loss - how do they quantify that loss if the contractor in question would have never agreed to go through them? I think these are all pretty logical questions.

They'll quantify it by guess work...

The first thing they do is send you letter demanding a guessed day rate for an amount of time. They'll basically start high by demanding the full rate as lost revenue
You now have a solicitors letter, pointing out that you've breached the contract, and demanding immediate payment of between £60,000 and £100,000 (6 months or so)

Your choices are:
1) argue that it should be less and make a suggestion
2) argue that they should only have £10k as that's their profit (although it doesn't work like that in the court)
3) argue that they have suffered no loss (this does risk you being binned whatever you might think)
4) deny it completely.

They quantify it like that. It's then down to you. You have to play it very carefully.... The agency can now sniff up to £100k extra. They also know that you're unlikely to wind the company to avoid that as you'd lose the work. They are in the driving seat as you've breached the contract.