So, lets start again to try understand the big picture here rather throwing random irrelevant questions all over the place.
So you've got a contract via an agency with a client. The contract forbids you from introducing people to the client. Yes any clause in the contract is enforceable should certain conditions be met for a start. If you've any doubt you should have read it and questioned it at the beginning and if it was 'illegal' it should have been picked up in the contract review you had done.
So what does this mean? In most cases the client has an agreement with an agency to provide contractors. Usually its because the client doesn't want to do it so won't take contractors on directly. This is important. This would mean even if you introduced someone they would have to go through the agent. This kinda kills this whole thread dead if it is the case but lets carry on.
The reason this clause is in place is because the agent makes money placing contractors. Lets say 10% so a 400 quid contractor makes the agent 40 quid a day. If you decide to work directly with the client the agent loses that income so it's caught by the clause. If you introduce a contractor directly to the client this bypasses the agreement the agent has where they should get the 40 quid a day but by going direct you've robbed them of 40 quid they should rightfully have as part of their client/agent agreement. This is their loss which they will argue if you do manage to do this and breach your contract. They will lump a whole host of other costs on that and you'll be liable for it for the perceived time that contractor could be on site. This bit is arguable.
So at this point you are clear what the clause means, why it's there and what the agent will lose by doing this yes? That should answer 2 or 3 of your scatter gun questions yes?
Now getting away from the hypothetical made up questions... You have to understand how your situation works to know what is and isn't enforceable and if you would be on the hook. If the agent is the sole supplier and they client cannot or won't take contractors on directly then there is no problem working the client to identify the need and suggesting someone as they will have to go through the agent anyway. It is a bit stupid to do this without telling the agent though, for fairly obvious reasons. The best thing to do is involve the agent in the discussions which is not only professional but you may be able to negotiate a finders fee with the agent. All good business.
If the client can take contractors on direct or you purposely try and ignore this clause then you are in trouble. It's stupid to do this as there is no benefit to you as you said but you become liable for breach and all the lost revenue the agent could have got by supplying that contractor. I can see little reason why you should end up in this position if you've half a clue what you are doing.
I think that answer another few of your questions and overall gives you some understanding of what is going on.
That help and answer your issues?
So you've got a contract via an agency with a client. The contract forbids you from introducing people to the client. Yes any clause in the contract is enforceable should certain conditions be met for a start. If you've any doubt you should have read it and questioned it at the beginning and if it was 'illegal' it should have been picked up in the contract review you had done.
So what does this mean? In most cases the client has an agreement with an agency to provide contractors. Usually its because the client doesn't want to do it so won't take contractors on directly. This is important. This would mean even if you introduced someone they would have to go through the agent. This kinda kills this whole thread dead if it is the case but lets carry on.
The reason this clause is in place is because the agent makes money placing contractors. Lets say 10% so a 400 quid contractor makes the agent 40 quid a day. If you decide to work directly with the client the agent loses that income so it's caught by the clause. If you introduce a contractor directly to the client this bypasses the agreement the agent has where they should get the 40 quid a day but by going direct you've robbed them of 40 quid they should rightfully have as part of their client/agent agreement. This is their loss which they will argue if you do manage to do this and breach your contract. They will lump a whole host of other costs on that and you'll be liable for it for the perceived time that contractor could be on site. This bit is arguable.
So at this point you are clear what the clause means, why it's there and what the agent will lose by doing this yes? That should answer 2 or 3 of your scatter gun questions yes?
Now getting away from the hypothetical made up questions... You have to understand how your situation works to know what is and isn't enforceable and if you would be on the hook. If the agent is the sole supplier and they client cannot or won't take contractors on directly then there is no problem working the client to identify the need and suggesting someone as they will have to go through the agent anyway. It is a bit stupid to do this without telling the agent though, for fairly obvious reasons. The best thing to do is involve the agent in the discussions which is not only professional but you may be able to negotiate a finders fee with the agent. All good business.
If the client can take contractors on direct or you purposely try and ignore this clause then you are in trouble. It's stupid to do this as there is no benefit to you as you said but you become liable for breach and all the lost revenue the agent could have got by supplying that contractor. I can see little reason why you should end up in this position if you've half a clue what you are doing.
I think that answer another few of your questions and overall gives you some understanding of what is going on.
That help and answer your issues?
Comment