Hello
Last night with fellow contractors we were discussing the restrictive covenants placed in contracts aka “handcuff clauses” that most of us have encountered during our time in contracting. A suggestion was thrown on the table that the restrictive covenants were only placed between a contractor’s LTD and the agency and circumventing this would be possible by going through an umbrella company as it would appear if taken to court that it was an agreement between 2 companies and not on the individual as business transacted outside of the ltd company doesn't affect the restrictive covenant.
Now I was deeply skeptical as I mentioned to my colleagues that you normally sign the contract as a named representative of your ltd (added emphasis on the part of named) and therefore bound along with your ltd company to restrictive covenant while your LTD is still active.
Question: Am I wrong with my thinking on this or has this been something contractors been doing if they want to jump ship?
Last night with fellow contractors we were discussing the restrictive covenants placed in contracts aka “handcuff clauses” that most of us have encountered during our time in contracting. A suggestion was thrown on the table that the restrictive covenants were only placed between a contractor’s LTD and the agency and circumventing this would be possible by going through an umbrella company as it would appear if taken to court that it was an agreement between 2 companies and not on the individual as business transacted outside of the ltd company doesn't affect the restrictive covenant.
Now I was deeply skeptical as I mentioned to my colleagues that you normally sign the contract as a named representative of your ltd (added emphasis on the part of named) and therefore bound along with your ltd company to restrictive covenant while your LTD is still active.
Question: Am I wrong with my thinking on this or has this been something contractors been doing if they want to jump ship?
Comment