Restriction clause

[princec]

12. RESTRICTION:
12.1 The Consultancy shall not for a period of six months following the termination of the Assignment
supply its services directly, or through any other person, firm or company, to any Client for whom it has
carried out the Assignment at any time during the previous six months (save in the case of supply through
an employment business or recruitment consultancy with whom the Consultancy was also registered at the
date of commencement of the Assignment).

Is this a) legal and b) does it look rather like that it implies I can work for client through any other agency that happened to have my CV? (ie. just about all of them)

Looking to escape current pimps as they have come up with excuse after excuse for not paying me. Right now they owe me £9000. I'm mighty ****ed off.

Cas

[BolshieBastard]

Is this a) legal and b) does it look rather like that it implies I can work for client through any other agency that happened to have my CV? (ie. just about all of them)

Looking to escape current pimps as they have come up with excuse after excuse for not paying me. Right now they owe me £9000. I'm mighty ****ed off.

Cas

Why dont you or someone else who's in pcg, send this to them and ask why dont they pick a legal test case for this situation?

[JamieMoles]

Is this a) legal and b) does it look rather like that it implies I can work for client through any other agency that happened to have my CV? (ie. just about all of them)

Looking to escape current pimps as they have come up with excuse after excuse for not paying me. Right now they owe me £9000. I'm mighty ****ed off.

Cas

If they've not paid you are they not already in breach of contract therefore rendering it null and void?

[TheFaQQer]

Is this a) legal

Yes

and b) does it look rather like that it implies I can work for client through any other agency that happened to have my CV? (ie. just about all of them)

Yes - not the most sensibly worded clause!! Seems that someone has tried to be clever, and has messed it up completely.

Looking to escape current pimps as they have come up with excuse after excuse for not paying me. Right now they owe me £9000. I'm mighty ****ed off.

Cas

So, they are already in breach of contract, which means that you should be able to walk.

Of course, what may not be so straightforward is the contract between the agency and the client, which probably says that the client can only take you on through them for a period of 6 months. You ditching the agency is one thing, the client ditching them is something that is completely different.

If they are in breach of contract, I wouldn't be there anyway - I'd be explaining the situation to the client and then downing tools until I got paid. And in the meantime, would be charging interest on the debt, and chasing them through legal channels.

[princec]

Of course, what may not be so straightforward is the contract between the agency and the client, which probably says that the client can only take you on through them for a period of 6 months. You ditching the agency is one thing, the client ditching them is something that is completely different.

Indeed, I suspect this is probably more of a problem. Bah.

Cas

[pzz76077]

Is this a) legal and b) does it look rather like that it implies I can work for client through any other agency that happened to have my CV? (ie. just about all of them)

Looking to escape current pimps as they have come up with excuse after excuse for not paying me. Right now they owe me £9000. I'm mighty ****ed off.

Cas

Yes its legal - its a clause in a contract that you have signed. What is not clear is what penalty would apply if you broke this clause.

Stop working for these clowns now before they bankrupt you and put you on the street. They will never take you seriously unless you take action.

PZZ

[XLMonkey]

Its a poorly worded clause, but it is legal. However, as long as you go through an agent that you had registered with before the first contract started, you will be fine.

On the £9k - you should send a final demand and then initiate court proceedings to get paid - but bear in mind that delaying payment does not equal breach of contract. It may not be fair, but the courts do not generally accept late payment as a reason to walk away from your contractual obligations. So, you can't simply use this as a reason to ignore the contract, or to withdraw your services.

(this is why you have to issue the final demand and go to court to get paid instead).

[XLMonkey]

If they've not paid you are they not already in breach of contract therefore rendering it null and void?

Nope, they are not, unless your contract specifically states that late payment constitutes a material breach. Otherwise, you have to pursue the debt through the courts, but your obligations under the contract remain.

[SueEllen]

Nope, they are not, unless your contract specifically states that late payment constitutes a material breach. Otherwise, you have to pursue the debt through the courts, but your obligations under the contract remain.

Agreed.

I've been told by the lawyers I know if your contact doesn't specifically state that late payment and other things that you view as detrimental are a breach, you need to make a fuss (preferably in writing) and claim it's a breach of contract. However even then you have to go through the courts to prove it is.

[princec]

This is why I specially invoiced weekly to make sure all my invoices were under the threshold for small claims actions. As of today, they've paid me for 3 weeks work out of 10, with £9000 or so still outstanding from 23rd October. I can't quite see how they think this is good for business (in fact it's not, I won't be renewing with them, and the big boss here at the client won't ever touch them again - he doesn't want unhappy contractors working for him).

Cas