• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Restrictive covenant

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Restrictive covenant

    Let's say in theory the covenant contains two parts to it, first one is the obvious one where it forbids the contractor going direct bluntly speaking. The other part forbids them introducing any other person to the client. How enforceable is the second part?

    #2
    Originally posted by cannon999 View Post
    Let's say in theory the covenant contains two parts to it, first one is the obvious one where it forbids the contractor going direct bluntly speaking. The other part forbids them introducing any other person to the client. How enforceable is the second part?
    equally. If not more enforceable.

    Limiting what a person can do has some limitations.
    Preventing your supplier from having direct commercial engagements with your customer has no such limitiations.
    See You Next Tuesday

    Comment


      #3
      Sadly, both are enforceable.

      It is a bit silly though as the client could need someone, you introduce them and then the agency gets the commission when they get the job for doing naff all. If it goes via the agency it basically means they get to put their choice of person in front of the client, who may not be the person you're recommending.

      Also, direct introductions to client mean the first restrictive covenant can't be binding (I get it removed as 90% of my work is found via recommendations) as the agency didn't do the intial leg work.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Lance View Post
        equally. If not more enforceable.

        Limiting what a person can do has some limitations.
        Preventing your supplier from having direct commercial engagements with your customer has no such limitiations.
        There is no commercial engagement. Its just a matter of saying the name and making a recommendation.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
          Sadly, both are enforceable.

          It is a bit silly though as the client could need someone, you introduce them and then the agency gets the commission when they get the job for doing naff all. If it goes via the agency it basically means they get to put their choice of person in front of the client, who may not be the person you're recommending.

          Also, direct introductions to client mean the first restrictive covenant can't be binding (I get it removed as 90% of my work is found via recommendations) as the agency didn't do the intial leg work.
          What if the client wasn't looking for anyone? And only my recommendation played a role. Could the agency really claim lost income in that case?

          Comment


            #6
            They've just put that in there to have a laugh at the gullible. It's not enforceable... Even though it's in a signed contract :/

            Why would you think one clause is enforceable and the one thst bothers you isn't?
            'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by cannon999 View Post
              There is no commercial engagement. Its just a matter of saying the name and making a recommendation.
              that is, in the eyes of the agency, a commercial engagement. The fact that you aren't making anything out of it yourself is why you're not an agent.
              See You Next Tuesday

              Comment


                #8
                What is the exact wording? That will give you a clue.

                If the agency can prove that you making an introduction direct to the client resulted in material loss to them, then it will cost you a pretty penny. It's up to you what your appetite for risk is.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
                  What is the exact wording? That will give you a clue.

                  If the agency can prove that you making an introduction direct to the client resulted in material loss to them, then it will cost you a pretty penny. It's up to you what your appetite for risk is.
                  How would they prove that though? That's what is unclear to me.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I have done this.
                    I recommended someone I knew to a client. They got the job. I got nothing.
                    The agency found out. Pointed out I was in breach of contract. Asked that if I have any more recommendations to keep them in the loop and accepted my apology for 'not understanding this was a problem'.

                    The agency were always going to get their cut. The differnce is whether they got 13% for someone that they, or their representative found, or 5% for someone the client found.
                    In that case it would be hard to argue that the client found this person without me. And I had a contractual obligation.

                    The agency weren't going to get rid of me as I was making them money.


                    Why are you even bothered anyway? There's more than one way to do this. What if you were out drinking with your client, and your mate, and they happened to get on? Simples... You have plausible deniability, and if the agency come sniffing you say, 'yeah I know him. We went drinking. they seemed to get on. What of it?'
                    See You Next Tuesday

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X