4 week notice period?

[northernladuk]

Yes

Legally yes but it never goes legal. You are just sitting on your laurels waiting for the inevitable tulip storm that is approaching. IMO you can't call the agent names for ignoring you when stick something in and then ignore it as well.

Any legal basis for your assertion? I'd think that particularly in recent times, the Postal Rule has been updated to cover the scenario of communication via email.

I think you are right here actually but it's complicated and can only be argued by solicitors etc. It's far too late by the time it's got to this point.

The expectation was set some time prior, and the situation arose because of the actions of the agent. The contractor tried to communicate with the agent but the agent chose to ignore the situation. Due to the unreasonable actions of the agent, I think that any judge wouldn't find in their favour where there is any dispute over the contract term.

Hmm, I am sure there is an example where neither party agrees and it doesn't go down to last example seen. Let me get back on that one.

The perception of the client and the legal reality of the situation that the actions (or inaction) of the agency caused are two different matters.

Absolutely agree. Bearing in mind this never goes legal even when there are clear breaches etc then IMO the focus would be on the perception and relationship fall out personally. We will obviously have to agree to disagree here. I see your legal points but that is not the way forward for me. I would rather negotiate my way out of this than quote contract law when it all goes wrong. If he is very lucky he still might pull a win win out of this. Relying on the legal aspects only no one wins.

Well, that's one way to look at it. The only person with their head in the sand is the agent, though - they were the ones that hid, they were the ones who acted unreasonably, they were the ones that are still hiding, they are the ones that did not reject the contract when they had the opportunity, they are the ones who have accepted the situation. If it ever came to court, they wouldn't have a hope in hell of winning. So why bother chasing someone who doesn't want to get caught, but will be in the losing position if the matter ever arose?

I'm still not convinced this is the case but will go look in to that.

Either way, trying to use complex contract law as a get out for this isn't the way forward. The agent gave terms which are clearly non-negotiable, sometimes the agents just won't budge so that's that. PC didn't like them but instead of either accepting them or rejecting them and walking he fully intends to do just what he wants regardless of the situation and try and hide behind words and unsigned contracts. He might have well of not bothered signing anything and just turning up. He's going to walk regardless, there will be a tulip storm regardless. We all know it's not going to go legal but he can kiss his last payment goodbye that's for sure. He will also post endless tulipty threads bemoaning the position that is purely of his own making.

Spending some time to speak to the agent and in turn possibly the client and set up expectations may go someway to avoiding the fall out that is most definitely going to happen. Even if it's a protracted email exchange at least when he puts his notice in and walks with 7 days all the parties will be aware and most of the moaning will have been done. Just dropping it on them is going to help no one.

All the legalities may (and I am still not convinced) favour PC but it's just irrelevant. There will be a world of trouble coming and I don't think it is unreasonable to attempt to reduce this rather than sit there saying I'm legally right and that's that.

Although it's very interesting to discuss the fact that this is so complicated just proves that this is a really stupid position to be in. If every contractor just mailed his contract back to a client with anything he wanted on it the entire industry would be in bloody chaos.

[TheFaQQer]

Although it's very interesting to discuss the fact that this is so complicated just proves that this is a really stupid position to be in. If every contractor just mailed his contract back to a client with anything he wanted on it the entire industry would be in bloody chaos.

It's not as simple as just being the last one to get a word in (otherwise you'd leave it till the last minute and drop a contract off that pays £10k a day and retire happy) - if the form has been communicated reasonably, and the party that is relying on the clause can show that they acted reasonably and the other party didn't, then the law will side with the reasonableness.

In this case, I see the contractor as being more reasonable than the agent - they have tried to contact them, and sent the contract over when the agency tried to avoid them. The agency, on the other hand, seem to think that they can hide and get their way.

Ultimately, it's a moot point - it relies on PC getting a new contract and walking from this one

[northernladuk]

Ultimately, it's a moot point - it relies on PC getting a new contract and walking from this one

That one line kinda kills the whole thread

Anyway, lots of interesting reading around this and there appears not to be one single rule for this situation. All the ones I have read are dealt with on an individual basis and some have won and some have lost but didn't find one interesting snippet...

Long complex case but in Co-op Vs ICL where they started work before concluding negotiation on some points. I don't really understand the full details so hope I am not quoting something that needs context but...

Co-op v ICL

It says...

During the trial the Judge specifically referred Mr Mawrey to the judgments in G.Scammell and Nephew Limited v Ouston [1941] AC 251 and Pagnan Spa v Feed Products [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 601. In the first case, it was held by Wright LJ in the Court of Appeal that if the parties were still in negotiation about the terms of an intended contract and did not intend to be bound until those negotiations were concluded, they had not entered into any agreement.

Using this analogy that the agent put forward a contract with a notice that PC didn't agree with so he put in a contract with a notice period that the agent wouldn't agree to it could be argued that they didn't enter in to an agreement/contract. So it isn't as clear cut as the last contract seen wins.

[TheFaQQer]

Using this analogy that the agent put forward a contract with a notice that PC didn't agree with so he put in a contract with a notice period that the agent wouldn't agree to it could be argued that they didn't enter in to an agreement/contract. So it isn't as clear cut as the last contract seen wins.

A pedant would suggest that they weren't in negotiations if only one party was willing to speak

[northernladuk]

A pedant would suggest that they weren't in negotiations if only one party was willing to speak

But that would then also indicate there is no negotiation. Take it or leave it.

[CoolCat]

mostly in my experience the agency or end client is in breach of contract already when I have got so cheesed off I wanted to leave, so I would have had no heartache about leaving. some of the stuff I have seen would easily be considered harassment by any court of law, and when their side is committing a serious crime like that their reliance on any terms of the contract is worthless. I am lucky when its got that bad I have been close to renewal and simply refused to extend.

[northernladuk]

mostly in my experience the agency or end client is in breach of contract already when I have got so cheesed off I wanted to leave, so I would have had no heartache about leaving. some of the stuff I have seen would easily be considered harassment by any court of law, and when their side is committing a serious crime like that their reliance on any terms of the contract is worthless. I am lucky when its got that bad I have been close to renewal and simply refused to extend.

I can't help but not believing any of this. Not sure if it's the lack of caps or the fact your contract isn't with the end client so they can't be in breach. I find it very hard to believe clients allow people to commit serious crimes once, let alone multiple times as indicated.

Hey ho.

[Andy Hallett]

I do work for CF / SThree group and sit on our UK board. This is now the third time I have offered to review your issue and the 2nd thread you have posted on.

You seem more intent on sharing your experience with a bunch of strangers rather than someone who has the ability to review and take action to sort your situation if required.

My offer stands.

[northernladuk]

Even if so, and it would be difficult and expensive to prove. The other overriding factor would be establishing what compensation the agent was actually due. So even if found in breach what was the financial damage? Bearing in mind that every pimp in the UK tells us they barely make any real profit on a contract I would guess at the end of it there would be costs and 1p in damages.



Hardy worth the effort.

That is true but we have one thread running at the moment where it looks like the contractor won't get his blast month money and might not be worth chasing due a counter claim so could be a couple of thousand down the pan. Either way, the moral is not to get yourself into such a horrible predicament.

[psychocandy]

That is true but we have one thread running at the moment where it looks like the contractor won't get his blast month money and might not be worth chasing due a counter claim so could be a couple of thousand down the pan. Either way, the moral is not to get yourself into such a horrible predicament.

Link?