Misrepresentation in "selling" a contract?

[Snooky]

I was about to start looking for a new contract, so that I could minimise the gap when this one (potentially) ended in three months' time.

If you'd been fortunate enough to land yourself a juicy contract sooner than expected, say after 2 weeks of looking, and with a much nicer rate/location/duration/role - i.e. a "no-brainer" - but they needed you to start within a couple of weeks, what would you have done?

1. Give notice to the client so you could make sure you didn't lose the nice new contract and ensure continuity of income as well as a much nicer role
2. Turn it down because you'd already agreed 6 months with the client and didn't want to be the kind of person who misrepresents an agreement

[jmo21]

No, not American - but also not one to just bend over and take a shafting when the law is there to protect us from bad practice. In this case it's not particularly nasty on its own - but hirers have a duty of care and unless they realise their moral and legal responsibility in their actions we can expect things for contractors to get worse. There is no fortitude or bravery in just walking away; that exacerbates the problem for everyone.

take a shafting, duty of care, fortitude or bravery, come on dude, someone over estimated how long a project might take, and the contract has provisions for it ending early FOR WHATEVER REASON, for.a.reason. (And I know this isn't about the contract itself)

(Can't help but think this is a regular trolling)

[Whumpie]

No, you're not making sense, you're trying to go back to why you think you have a case - keeping talking about how they lied, they fibbed, etc.
I'm trying to establish a few facts that might help.

1. You expected the contract would end early. When did you first expect that?

2. The project manager messed up, either by not knowing what was going on, or not choosing to advise you.

3. Rather than trying to find new work, you're now consumed with revenge. Wouldn't it be better looking for a new contract?

I think you've read something wrongly there: I was completely surprised that the contract was ended early; there had been no hint of it up to then. What I have said is that I don't have any problem with their contractual right to do so. My problem isn't with anything to do with the contract or what's happened since it was signed. The issue is with what they did in order to secure my signature in the first place.

[Whumpie]

If you'd been fortunate enough to land yourself a juicy contract sooner than expected, say after 2 weeks of looking, and with a much nicer rate/location/duration/role - i.e. a "no-brainer" - but they needed you to start within a couple of weeks, what would you have done?

1. Give notice to the client so you could make sure you didn't lose the nice new contract and ensure continuity of income as well as a much nicer role
2. Turn it down because you'd already agreed 6 months with the client and didn't want to be the kind of person who misrepresents an agreement

That's a really good question! I've only ever once resigned a contract, and that was for good reason. I don't believe in not following through on a role once I've committed. So if I'd had a sniff of what they were prepared to do to me, I'd have gone - but two weeks ago, no - I'd have stayed put. I think.

Just HOW much better paid?

[Whumpie]

take a shafting, duty of care, fortitude or bravery, come on dude, someone over estimated how long a project might take, and the contract has provisions for it ending early FOR WHATEVER REASON, for.a.reason. (And I know this isn't about the contract itself)

(Can't help but think this is a regular trolling)

I'm starting to think you're trolling, but assuming not, I'll try this once more: This isn't about them cutting the contract short. It's about them falsely claiming that they expected the role to last six months, in order to get me to sign the contract rather than the other one. The project continues, as planned, with permanent staff to replace me and no further funding for a contractor - all things they knew about. They repeatedly said it would be at least six months because - and they've admitted this - it's hard to attract good people with a three-month contract.

That's misrepresentation, and under the Misrepresentation Act that means damages could be due. I don't think that's even up for debate, and none of the three lawyers I've spoken to see any issue with that. What is an issue is whether those damages are significant enough and easy enough to secure to make it worth all the expense and hassle of trying. That's not so easy - so I'm awaiting further advice on that from two specialist lawyers. Should be interesting.

[WTFH]

I think you've read something wrongly there: I was completely surprised that the contract was ended early; there had been no hint of it up to then.

But in your first post you said...

nobody is surprised that it's being cut short.

[jmo21]

I'm starting to think you're trolling, but assuming not, I'll try this once more: This isn't about them cutting the contract short. It's about them falsely claiming that they expected the role to last six months, in order to get me to sign the contract rather than the other one. The project continues, as planned, with permanent staff to replace me and no further funding for a contractor - all things they knew about. They repeatedly said it would be at least six months because - and they've admitted this - it's hard to attract good people with a three-month contract.

That's misrepresentation, and under the Misrepresentation Act that means damages could be due. I don't think that's even up for debate, and none of the three lawyers I've spoken to see any issue with that. What is an issue is whether those damages are significant enough and easy enough to secure to make it worth all the expense and hassle of trying. That's not so easy - so I'm awaiting further advice on that from two specialist lawyers. Should be interesting.

5 lawyers

***** it, good luck!

[jmo21]

But in your first post you said...

to be fair, he's talking about them, not him/herself.

[Whumpie]

to be fair, he's talking about them, not him/herself.

Yep. Thought that was obvious, but apparently not. It should have read "nobody client-side was surprised..."

[Whumpie]

I think I may have used up my freebie allowance with all the lawyers!

I have had a key confirmation, though: that the Misrepresentation Act of 1967 IS likely to apply to this scenario, and that it will be all about the ability to connect a loss to the misrepresentation. Finding out about that rather important 2nd part is going to cost me. Of course...