change of agencies and fees

[calder]

hi - i signed a contract with agency X, to work for consultancy Y. Consultant Y sent me on a project to work for end user company Z. The end user company Z wants me to keep working for them, but they don't want me to go through agency X or consultancy Y anymore. They want me to sign a contract with their internal agency A. Consultancy Y is ok (because end user company Z is a big client of theirs), but agency X is requesting a fee.

My contract with agency X reads "the consultant (ie. me, through my limited company) acknowledges that, should the client or a third party to whom it has introduced the consultant wish to utilise the consultant's services other than through agency X within the relevant period (ie. 12 weeks since I opted in), then agency X may be able to charge the Client a fee or agree an extension of Supply with the Client."

If I go through agency A now to work with end user company Z, will I have to pay a fee to agency X, according tot he contract? When I read the contract, it seems like I do not owe the agency X anything, and that if anyone should pay the fee, it should be Y rather (who is referred to as the "Client" in the contract).

Any advise please? Thank you in advance.

[Kanye]

At first glance it looks as though the agency can whistle. They placed you with a consultancy who are now out of the picture, so that relationship is over.

However, this phrase "to whom it has introduced the consultant" appears to cover them no? Whether that is defensable in court is another question I guess.

[rd409]

You will be fine. Your new contract is going to be with Agency A, which was not part of the original contract framework between you - X - Y - Client. So just be firm and tell them to try that out in the court if they wish, and you are not going to give them a single penny.

My 2p.

Dave.

[northernladuk]

You will be fine. Your new contract is going to be with Agency A, which was not part of the original contract framework between you - X - Y - Client. So just be firm and tell them to try that out in the court if they wish, and you are not going to give them a single penny.

My 2p.

Dave.

I can't see this. Doesn't matter who he goes with Agent X had dibs on him and will be losing work because of this so would have the high ground here. The handcuff clause is around to stop exactly this happening. Agent places then client find cheaper way of getting the same person so leaving Agent X out of pocket. There are not many situations handcuff clauses will stick and I can't see why this one won't. Agent X will lose out so giving him the hand.

Bear in mind if it doesn't get resolved he will scream the place down and threaten the client with legal action. I have seen clients drop contractors in the past as they don't want to get embroiled in that can of action so whatever the contracts say they could cause a problem for you, even just out of spite.

I don't think this one is as clear cut as you think. Resolveable yes but could be a rocky road IMO.

[rd409]

I can't see this. Doesn't matter who he goes with Agent X had dibs on him and will be losing work because of this so would have the high ground here. The handcuff clause is around to stop exactly this happening. Agent places then client find cheaper way of getting the same person so leaving Agent X out of pocket. There are not many situations handcuff clauses will stick and I can't see why this one won't. Agent X will lose out so giving him the hand.

Bear in mind if it doesn't get resolved he will scream the place down and threaten the client with legal action. I have seen clients drop contractors in the past as they don't want to get embroiled in that can of action so whatever the contracts say they could cause a problem for you, even just out of spite.

I don't think this one is as clear cut as you think. Resolveable yes but could be a rocky road IMO.

Can agree to most of your words, but what I see is that the end client has offered him the alternate way. Unless this has come from the contractor looking to increase his rate, my money would be that the end client is happy for the agent to be ditched. The end client has a contract with Agency Y, who are more than happy for the agreement to happen. The contractor is going from Agency X to Agency A, so Agency X has nothing concrete to be honest. Restrictive clauses are very hard to apply to consultancies, as they can have so many clients, so it would be deemed as restricting business. But as you suggested, speak to the client about the fuss as one of the possibilities, and if they are happy to deal with it, go for it.

[EternalOptimist]

This reminds me of a problem I once had.

where
3x =y
x + z = a
a = 4z

and you had to work out what a was

[rd409]

This reminds me of a problem I once had.

where
3x =y
x + z = a
a = 4z

and you had to work out what a was

a = 4.

Prove me wrong!

[DodgyAgent]

I can't see this. Doesn't matter who he goes with Agent X had dibs on him and will be losing work because of this so would have the high ground here. The handcuff clause is around to stop exactly this happening. Agent places then client find cheaper way of getting the same person so leaving Agent X out of pocket. There are not many situations handcuff clauses will stick and I can't see why this one won't. Agent X will lose out so giving him the hand.

Bear in mind if it doesn't get resolved he will scream the place down and threaten the client with legal action. I have seen clients drop contractors in the past as they don't want to get embroiled in that can of action so whatever the contracts say they could cause a problem for you, even just out of spite.

I don't think this one is as clear cut as you think. Resolveable yes but could be a rocky road IMO.

Spot on in your analysis. In the end it will come down to a matter of how far the various parties are willing to go. If the agent X can prove a loss then they will have a pretty strong case against the client - who are unlikely to want to get involved in a legal case. The danger we have here is that the agency will have nothing to lose by throwing their toys out of the pram and the ultimate loser is likely to be the contractor

[northernladuk]

Can agree to most of your words, but what I see is that the end client has offered him the alternate way. Unless this has come from the contractor looking to increase his rate, my money would be that the end client is happy for the agent to be ditched. The end client has a contract with Agency Y, who are more than happy for the agreement to happen. The contractor is going from Agency X to Agency A, so Agency X has nothing concrete to be honest. Restrictive clauses are very hard to apply to consultancies, as they can have so many clients, so it would be deemed as restricting business. But as you suggested, speak to the client about the fuss as one of the possibilities, and if they are happy to deal with it, go for it.

The OP has it in his contract with X to not go with clients upstream. I am sure the client is happy to do so but the OP's contract forbades him to do so. It is up to the contractor to say sorry I can't. It is him that has the handcuff to X. The client will be surprised to find that the contractor is tied to a handcuff and may not want anything to do with the charges when they crop up. Agency X has a binding signed document saying the OP cannot go to a supplier without Agency X getting his loses covered. Don't know how much more black and white it can be.

[Doggy Styles]

Agent X has a case. This has happened to me in the past, and the client had to sort it out.

In your case Consultancy Y are the ones who want to unilaterally tear up a contractual agreement with Agent X (whereas they appear to have agreed with Company Z to tear that one up).

If Consultancy Y do this, isn't it reasonable to assume in advance that Agent X won't/can't pay you, and that you'll have a case for terminating your contract with them, which gets you out of the loop?

That leaves Consultancy Y to smooth this out with Agent X.

IANAL etc, but nothing to do with me guv.