Extension of existing contract, but agency trying to change notice terms in schedule

[lexington_spurs]

here we go

letter received today by my Ltd:

Congratulations on the extension of your contract with < EB > for which we have enclosed an electronic copy of your contract.

In the schedule they have added this:

Notice to Terminate: by Company: This Agreement may not be terminated early by the Company and
shall remain in force for the Period unless terminated early by us
us: Two weeks

Original contract hand each previous renewal schedule had:

Notice to Terminate: by Company: Two weeks
us: Two weeks

I think this has come about because the EB have only just read the terms of their contract with the ultimate hirer and want to line them up. I don't need a notice period and I don't want to promise to stay at this circus for the full 6 months. My ltd does have a substitution clause.

Can/should I contest this change on behalf of my Ltd?

Thanks in advance

[SimonMac]

here we go

letter received today by my Ltd:

Congratulations on the extension of your contract with < EB > for which we have enclosed an electronic copy of your contract.

In the schedule they have added this:

Notice to Terminate: by Company: This Agreement may not be terminated early by the Company and
shall remain in force for the Period unless terminated early by us
us: Two weeks

Original contract hand each previous renewal schedule had:

Notice to Terminate: by Company: Two weeks
us: Two weeks

I think this has come about because the EB have only just read the terms of their contract with the ultimate hirer and want to line them up. I don't need a notice period and I don't want to promise to stay at this circus for the full 6 months. My ltd does have a substitution clause.

Can/should I contest this change on behalf of my Ltd?

Thanks in advance

If you don't agree with the contract then yes contest it, if you say you are not signing the contract on the basis of that clause I can pretty much guarantee you it will be removed. If you are happy to have the clause use it as bargaining to eat into the agents margin

[lexington_spurs]

thanks ..

Thank you Simon.

the next bit of the story is that the EB have raised this paperwork backdated to July 1st. The previous contract renewal expired on 30th June. So I believe that the work done between 1st July and whenever this contract extension gets signed inherits the previous terms and conditions.

While everyone is wondering why any contractor was on site at the end client without a current contract - both myself and another contractor were given evidence of the end client's budget approvals and the agreement between EB and end-client ..

[northernladuk]

You can't contest it but you are well within your rights to negotiate it out. It is a contract that is agreed between the two of you and getting a compromise that you are both happy with is the aim. Only permies should be dicated by contracts they cannot change and even then I would argue they should, it is just they often don't.

It is becoming more and more common to have no notice period and to be honest it makes no difference. You say you have sub clause but you should also have a Mutuality of Obligation clause that says something along the lines of they are not obliged to give you work and you are not obliged to take it. The wording could mean work as in day by day or work after the contract, you would have to see what it says.

The upshot is if they have no work for you they do not need to pay you so they could invoke notice and then say no work so you are on unpaid notice e.g. virtually immediate termination. The same could be said the other way but you being a supplier it would probably work out much worse for you if you just say you don't want to do the work and leave, also questionable professionally.

If you do need to leave just deal with it professionally, give them as much notice and just say you are going and thats that but be as helpful about it as you can. The agent will get particularly unhappy, same could be said for the client but the chance of this going to court or anything is pretty slim to nil really as you can always pull MoO if it is worded properly.

It has more likely come about as they are sick of contractors rate hoping and leaving them in the lurch....looks at NWP2C....

[northernladuk]

Thank you Simon.

the next bit of the story is that the EB have raised this paperwork backdated to July 1st. The previous contract renewal expired on 30th June. So I believe that the work done between 1st July and whenever this contract extension gets signed inherits the previous terms and conditions.

While everyone is wondering why any contractor was on site at the end client without a current contract - both myself and another contractor were given evidence of the end client's budget approvals and the agreement between EB and end-client ..

You are getting in to very dodgy ground and I don't think it is safe for you to assume this bearing in mind the situation is really your fault. Doesn't matter what view you had of anything. If you don't have a signed contract you are on a wish and a prayer. Yes you have an implied contract as you suggest but still very dodgy ground, particularly now you have seen a new contract. You are in legal territory now. I believe implied contracts are the last one you saw and you have seen the new one. You should have dealt with this once and for all at the correct time, not sitting on your laurels when really you are in a pretty difficult situation.

Chances of you negotiating this out now are nil. You have hung yourself out to dry here I am afraid.

[Gentile]

You can't contest it but you are well within your rights to negotiate it out. It is a contract that is agreed between the two of you and getting a compromise that you are both happy with is the aim. Only permies should be dicated by contracts they cannot change and even then I would argue they should, it is just they often don't. ...

WHS. It's amazing how often an agency will try to tell me they work with "thousands of other Contractors and all of them agreed to X", when in reality whenever I talk to other contractors on site or more widely in the industry, most of us have the intelligence to actually read our contracts and question those parts of them that are unreasonable for our circumstances. I always just tell them I'm not negotiating on anyone else's behalf but only on behalf my own Ltd, and so whatever arrangements they may have with others isn't relevant to our discussion. They sometimes get a more senior member of staff to speak with you to try and add pressure to sign, but in the end they always agree to reasonable changes, provided you stand your ground. I've only once encountered an agency refusing to change a single clause (Computer People), and with the way the contract ended up working out for the person that did take it I was very glad to have decided to pass on the opportunity.

A reciprocal notice period is one of those things I always insist upon. (I prefer notice periods to be removed completely as a concept, but if it is in there, I require it to be reciprocal with the same amount required by each party).

[lexington_spurs]

I'll tell the EB they can reinstate the former version of the conditions tomorrow. Cheers for all viewpoints.

[Wanderer]

I believe implied contracts are the last one you saw and you have seen the new one. You should have dealt with this once and for all at the correct time, not sitting on your laurels when really you are in a pretty difficult situation.

Chances of you negotiating this out now are nil. You have hung yourself out to dry here I am afraid.

I'm going to disagree here, I think it's quite the opposite and it's the agency who have shot themselves in the foot. If they produce a new contract before the work starts then that's fair enough but in this case they let the contractor start work so the presumption is that this is an extension of the existing contract as there was no other contract.

The agency (or client) can't turn around and say "Oh, by the way we've changed X, Y and Z in the contract" at some time after you've started work. Just smile politely and tell them there being no other paperwork produced before work commenced, the extension was accepted on exactly the same terms as the previous contract and you are not minded to renegotiate those terms at this stage. Thank you very much, good bye.

Seriously folks, don't take any bulltulip from these agencies. Any attempt to change the terms after you have started work is treated as for any other mid contract variation...

[northernladuk]

I'm going to disagree here, I think it's quite the opposite and it's the agency who have shot themselves in the foot. If they produce a new contract before the work starts then that's fair enough but in this case they let the contractor start work so the presumption is that this is an extension of the existing contract as there was no other contract.

The agency (or client) can't turn around and say "Oh, by the way we've changed X, Y and Z in the contract" at some time after you've started work. Just smile politely and tell them there being no other paperwork produced before work commenced, the extension was accepted on exactly the same terms as the previous contract and you are not minded to renegotiate those terms at this stage. Thank you very much, good bye.

Seriously folks, don't take any bulltulip from these agencies. Any attempt to change the terms after you have started work is treated as for any other mid contract variation...

And I will see your don't agree with another I don't agree. You cannot refuse the new contract and stay on the implied contract. That just doesn't make sense. There is a new contract, you sign it or you walk. We all know when you start a new contract with no contract you are on a wish and a prayer.. the same is here. The implied contract won't stand up to scrutiny anyway. When the agent doesn't pay you and you point out it is in your contract they will just laugh at you. It is in the OP's interest to get the new contract sorted.

They are not attempt to change terms after he started work. He started work with no contract.

Do understand what you are saying if you are insinuating he is in a stronger position though yes.

[lexington_spurs]

when they struggle to provide paperwork ..

And I will see your don't agree with another I don't agree. You cannot refuse the new contract and stay on the implied contract. That just doesn't make sense. There is a new contract, you sign it or you walk.

When the end client and EB ran into some admin issues, they emailed to say that all conditions & invoicing arrangments remained the same. Original post didn't mention that and should have.

They are not attempt to change terms after he started work. He started work with no contract.

Not really. I guess my original post was trying to understand why the EB wanted to do this on an extension, why they didn't flag it up instead of trying to sneak it in, and whether it was worth contesting.