Misrepresentation in "selling" a contract?

[Whumpie]

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.

You may have had a clear case, then - it hinges on whether you would have taken the contract anyway, whether you had an alternative (and therefore lost out financially) and whether the 12 month claim was based on reasonable a expectation of that duration. The length of the contract is irrelevant; it is illegal to use false information (deliberately or otherwise) to entice a signature on a contract of any sort, and if by doing so you cause a loss of any sort, then you are liable for damages. It's a very basic principle of law.

[northernladuk]

Yawn.....

Neither of his cases are valid as you've said yourself multiple times. Nothing he put mentions misselling so you are now in the realms of suing every client that terminates early and that's just rubbish. The guy has an overarching contract for 6 month with agreed termination clauses and paid when work clauses. All absolutely standard and have been there since the dawn of contracting.

[northernladuk]

Whumpie. What would contracting look like if you actually had a case here? Clients will be sued if they get their estimates wrong, agents daren't say a word in case they get it wrong? Where would we be?

[Old Greg]

You may have had a clear case, then - it hinges on whether you would have taken the contract anyway, whether you had an alternative (and therefore lost out financially) and whether the 12 month claim was based on reasonable a expectation of that duration. The length of the contract is irrelevant; it is illegal to use false information (deliberately or otherwise) to entice a signature on a contract of any sort, and if by doing so you cause a loss of any sort, then you are liable for damages. It's a very basic principle of law.

It would want to be.

[Paralytic]

Whumpie. What would contracting look like if you actually had a case here? Clients will be sued if they get their estimates wrong, agents daren't say a word in case they get it wrong? Where would we be?

Whumpie is not saying that the contract would be any different, but that the client should not have told the agency that the engagement would likely be 6 months in length when they later admitted (verbally) that it was only ever going to be 3 months in length.

Any talk of the contents of the contract is a red-herring here; its not what Whumpie's complaint is about.

I still don't rate his chances of a successful claim, however.

[northernladuk]

Whumpie is not saying that the contract would be any different, but that the client should not have told the agency that the engagement would likely be 6 months in length when they later admitted (verbally) that it was only ever going to be 3 months in length.

What the client tells the agent is irrelevant. It's the agent he has the contract/agreement with.

Any talk of the contents of the contract is a red-herring here; its not what Whumpie's complaint is about.

Yup am aware of that point. It's key to how ridiculous his argument is.

I still don't rate his chances of a successful claim, however.

Indeed.

My agent told me this gig was going to be 3 months with no renewals. I've been here 16 months. The lying bastard misrepresented the gig.

That said, I took a 3 month gig and assure the agent I would be there for that and more. Left after 6 weeks. I guess I should expect a court summons from the agent soon.

[BlasterBates]

I don't get the impression from the description that the client intentionally wanted to keep the contract to only 3 months. I interpret it as they only had the funding for 3 months but were expecting to get a further funding approval for the final 3 months as they'd done in the past.

The point is though the agency would have had a contract for 6 months, and they probably had 6 month contracts in the past without them being cancelled, so therefore it will be difficult to argue misrepresentation.

Rolling 3 month contracts are perfectly normal and they would have found someone else if they'd advertised 3 months, so I don't see that as the reason.

[northernladuk]

I don't get the impression from the description that the client intentionally wanted to keep the contract to only 3 months. I interpret it as they only had the funding for 3 months but were expecting to get a further funding approval for the final 3 months as they'd done in the past.

The point is though the agency would have had a contract for 6 months, and they probably had 6 month contracts in the past without them being cancelled, so therefore it will be difficult to argue misrepresentation.

Absolutely. It's an overarching contract with notice periods and pay when work clauses so length is pretty irrelevant. They are nearly always tied to funding periods and very rarely to the exact length of work.

[Whumpie]

Update from people who actually know stuff

Ok all - the limit of my free legal advice has been reached, and finding out more will cost about £500 - so until I know whether I need to pursue it I'll leave it at this point.

I've sent the original ad, offer, correspondence and notice given to a specialist contract/employment lawyer, and the verdict is:
"It appears that you may have a claim against the ************ for negligent misrepresentation however you will appreciate that I am unable to provide you with advice on the merits of your case until I have undertaken a thorough review of the documentation."

Not exactly a glowing endorsement of the strength of the case but a clear statement that the principle of my argument is correct:
If you are misled (deliberately or otherwise) into making a choice that is detrimental to you compared to what you would have done had you not been mislead, you are entitled to damages under UK law. That is the Misrepresentation Act 1967 in a nutshell.

This does not mean that you can sue someone just for giving you notice. You must have been misled into signing the contract and you must be able to show that had you not been mislead you are likely to have been better off, e.g. having another offer that you turned down but which would have been a better choice.
These are pretty rare circumstances, but it happens.

These laws are hard-fought and they are there for our protection. We have to hold people to account - we are not here to be screwed over just because we earn a lot.

So those (NLUK - ahem) who say this is ridiculous go and take a look in the mirror and realise that perhaps it's just as well you don't work as lawyers. It strikes me that your attempts to ridicule this stem from the need to validate your own recessive behaviour when someone screws you over. You need to MTFU, frankly. Perhaps spend less time willy-waving on forums and more time sticking up for yourselves and your profession. Just a suggestion.

[northernladuk]

Ok all - the limit of my free legal advice has been reached, and finding out more will cost about £500 - so until I know whether I need to pursue it I'll leave it at this point.

I've sent the original ad, offer, correspondence and notice given to a specialist contract/employment lawyer, and the verdict is:
"It appears that you may have a claim against the ********* for negligent misrepresentation however you will appreciate that I am unable to provide you with advice on the merits of your case until I have undertaken a thorough review of the documentation."

Not exactly a glowing endorsement of the strength

Understatement of the year there. So, so far you've proved absolutely nothing.

So those (NLUK - ahem)

Me and every single poster on this thread - ahem.

It strikes me that your attempts to ridicule this stem from the need to validate your own recessive behaviour when someone screws you over. You need to MTFU, frankly. Perhaps spend less time willy-waving on forums and more time sticking up for yourselves and your profession. Just a suggestion.

Probably the most realistic, accurate and common sense statement you've made in this entire thread TBF.