Misrepresentation in "selling" a contract?

[BlasterBates]

Fast forward two years and having just got back on it's feet post April 2020 the contracting industry hits another crises after clients pull all new contracts to assess the impact of someone successfully suing an agency for misrepresentation.

Indeed this is why I'm very sceptical because it would effectively set the precedent that no-one could ever give notice. This is a B2B relationship and if you agree a 6 month contract and leave after 4 would mean you can get sued for misrepresentation in selling your service.

The notice period in a contract doesn't specify what sort of reason you give. You can simply be fed up.

On one final point it is the contractor who does the selling, the client is the purchaser. The agency doesn't "sell" a contract to the contractor.

[Paralytic]

Out of interest.
If this doesn't work will you sue the legal advisors as well?

And if that doesn't work, he could sue his own Ltd company (which I guess is the legal entity that will need to sue the client?) for setting expectations that he, personally, would be working for 6 months.

[Paralytic]

Indeed this is why I'm very sceptical because it would effectively set the precedent that no-one could ever give notice. This is a B2B relationship and if you agree a 6 month contract and leave after 4 would mean you can get sued for misrepresentation in selling your service.

Isn't the difference here, however, that the client has admitted that it was never going to be a 6 month contract? Morally wrong, but I agree with others that, legally, i can't see it flying.

I've actually had similar happen to me. I was told it was a 12 month contract on initial engagement with the agency. The contract said 6 months, which I was happy with. However, once I got on site, I realised it was always going to be a 4 month project (though no-one openly admitted that) and notice was served at that point.

At another gig, I got a 6 month extension but the project was put on hold a few weeks later and I was given notice (to be fair, they gave me 4 weeks rather than the 1 in the contract).

In neither case did i feel let down. Friends and family still struggle to understand when I tell them that a contract length means very little with respect to guarantee of work/income.

[pr1]

Friends and family still struggle to understand when I tell them that a contract length means very little with respect to guarantee of work/income.

Just don't tell your mortgage provider!

[Paralytic]

Just don't tell your mortgage provider!

Aren't all contractors mortgage free?

[BrilloPad]

Aren't all contractors mortgage free?

Not for the Butler's place....

[pr1]

Aren't all contractors mortgage free?

If you're mortgage free you're either too old or in too small of a house

[Lance]

If you're mortgage free you're either too old or in too small of a house

yep.
If I paid my mortgage off I'd start looking for a bigger house to buy.

[northernladuk]

If you're mortgage free you're either too old or in too small of a house

Lol. I like this.

[Whumpie]

Some interesting stuff here. A lot of the posts are still grappling with the contract, and all I can say - again - is that this ISN'T about the contract. It's about misrepresentation at law. I think most people get that, to be honest.

The loss of earnings thing is where it gets very tricky, and that's my next line of questions with a specialist lawyer. Here's what I know so far:

• I can demonstrate that the role was sold as a 6-month role, with a 6-month contract attached to it and confirmation at the interview - so I had every reason to believe that the belief was that the role would last that long, barring unforeseen circumstances.

• The first indication that this wasn't the case was three months in, two days before notice was served.

• They have admitted - albeit verbally - that they should have advertised the role as 3-months. If they lie about that, there are ways to get proof that it was never honest to advertise a six-month role.

• I can prove that for my role, in this part of the country, it takes around three months to find a new contract. I was setting up to start looking now.

My view is that, even if the lawyer says I have a strong case, I don't use it unless I need to. If I walk into a new role quickly, I'll just politely point out that they need to be honest about role lengths in future (they're nice people who did a silly thing - they'll appreciate that) and leave it at that.

If, however, I take the usual two or three months to start earning again, then there is a clear loss there. If I'd taken the other contract it is reasonable to expect that I would still be earning during that period. The law does not look for pessimistic assumptions, it looks for the likely outcome, and the evidence says that I would probably still be earning during those three months had I taken the other contract.

I'll report back once I've spoken to another lawyer, and in more detail. I'm still running on freebie time so far but at some point I may need to spend some dosh!