Misrepresentation in "selling" a contract?

[Whumpie]

Damn - I should have redacted that bit. I have done in my post, but could you do so in yours, please?

We think it's not the agent as they were just acting on their client's instructions - and fair enough, really. And none of this was done in malice; they're good people. But the law is there for a reason and if I need to use it I would and should...

[northernladuk]

Damn - I should have redacted that bit. I have done in my post, but could you do so in yours, please?

Oh, being nice to me now?

[northernladuk]

We think it's not the agent as they were just acting on their client's instructions - and fair enough, really. And none of this was done in malice; they're good people. But the law is there for a reason and if I need to use it I would and should...

But the agency misrepresented it. The client can put anything they want down. They didn't push you to sign it, the agent did.

Also being a public body opens a whole new issue. Their frameworks for engaging contractors are a nightmare and the people running them don't really care. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't allow for custom lengths and the PO's will be raised for the 3 months regards. If they can raise for a set period not aligned to a quarter the effort taken to raise extensions means it's just too much effort so they'll just go for the standard cut off.

There is, of course the fact that the public sectors guys are the most highly focussed, energised and business aware lot.. not.

And trying to sue a public body... hope you aren't retiring anytime soon.

[Whumpie]

Oh, being nice to me now?

Yes! Here's some dancing bananas as a particular niceness!

[northernladuk]

Yes! Here's some dancing bananas as a particular niceness!

Sue me.

[WTFH]

Isn't it the agent that you are supposed to be going after? You've not contractual relationship with the end client

...and he's now being told he needs to put his hand in his pocket. Up until now all his legal "advice" has been free and will have been made in such a way that it has plenty of get out clauses.

He needs deep pockets and if he wants to get anywhere, he's going to have to pay.

And he needs to be going after the right business. If he's chasing the end client because of a contract they had with the agent, then he is a third party in the case. His own contract with the agent may well have clauses in it about discussing the contract with the client. I'd be surprised if he's seen the contract between the client and the agent.

When I went legal on an agent all those years ago, firstly I made sure that I put nothing in public that could come back and bite me. Secondly I got a solicitor involved who dealt with business contracts. Thirdly I paid for a lot of advice up front to make sure it was worth pursuing. Fourthly I settled including my >£10k legal costs. And finally I made sure there were no clauses in the settlement, so I was able to advise others on here (and elsewhere) to avoid that agent.

[Whumpie]

...and he's now being told he needs to put his hand in his pocket. Up until now all his legal "advice" has been free and will have been made in such a way that it has plenty of get out clauses.

He needs deep pockets and if he wants to get anywhere, he's going to have to pay.

And he needs to be going after the right business. If he's chasing the end client because of a contract they had with the agent, then he is a third party in the case. His own contract with the agent may well have clauses in it about discussing the contract with the client. I'd be surprised if he's seen the contract between the client and the agent.

When I went legal on an agent all those years ago, firstly I made sure that I put nothing in public that could come back and bite me. Secondly I got a solicitor involved who dealt with business contracts. Thirdly I paid for a lot of advice up front to make sure it was worth pursuing. Fourthly I settled including my >£10k legal costs. And finally I made sure there were no clauses in the settlement, so I was able to advise others on here (and elsewhere) to avoid that agent.

Ok, now just for a minute let's be serious. I've redacted the name but you are repeating it, deliberately, in the public domain. For both of our sakes, please go and overwrite it. Seriously. Argue all you like about the post, but repeating the client's name in your posts is a really bad idea.

[WTFH]

Ok, now just for a minute let's be serious. I've redacted the name but you are repeating it, deliberately, in the public domain. For both of our sakes, please go and overwrite it. Seriously. Argue all you like about the post, but repeating the client's name in your posts is a really bad idea.

I spent some time composing my post, during which you changed your mind and wrote several others.

I've now spent some of my valuable time going through and deleting a couple of posts and editing others.

Now, hopefully you'll take the advice given - the only people you had a contract with was the agent. The only one worth pursuing is the agent.

Going after the end client "on behalf of" the agent - you'll find that the agent is keener to keep the client than to keep you.

[jmo21]

I think you should go for it now!

[Whumpie]

I spent some time composing my post, during which you changed your mind and wrote several others.

I've now spent some of my valuable time going through and deleting a couple of posts and editing others.

Now, hopefully you'll take the advice given - the only people you had a contract with was the agent. The only one worth pursuing is the agent.

Going after the end client "on behalf of" the agent - you'll find that the agent is keener to keep the client than to keep you.

First things first: thanks for the editing; that's really appreciated. This forum may be anonymous, but I don't like naming and shaming - especially as this client really doesn't deserve it. They've done something misguided and naughty; they've not stabbed a puppy.