Clause question in contract

[northernladuk]

Don't sign the OPT OUT document they've no doubt presented you with in conjunction with the contract - if you don't opt out that clause will be null & void (IIUC).

You sure that isn't to go for perm employment after the contract?

[TheFaQQer]

You sure that isn't to go for perm employment after the contract?

No - opting in gives you the right to return after 8 weeks from the end of the contract or 14 from the start (whichever is later) without needing to use the same agency.

[malvolio]

No - opting in gives you the right to return after 8 weeks from the end of the contract or 14 from the start (whichever is later) without needing to use the same agency.

You sure about that? I always thought the period is that in which a charge for returning can be made.

[DodgyAgent]

Basically if you really take the p**s then the clause is there to protect the agency. If they try to use it unreasonably then they will not get anywhere

[Mephisto]

This sounds like an agency I have had indirect dealings with that put in unrealistic (and totally non-enforceable I would assume going off what NLUK says) clauses to their contracts. One recent assignment saw them trying to stipulate that the contractors under them had to do the following:

a) They MUST use the preferred umbrella company to get paid only - no others allowed and no ltd co. (this preferred brolly were not surprisingly part of the same conglomerate)
b) The contractor cannot contract to the current client or any other client through one of <agency's> competitors upon termination of the contract for 12 MONTHS (effectively meaning you'd have to take a year of contracting completely to not be in breach!)
c) Various other ridiculous hoops to jump through including three separate timesheets, an invoice and a lengthy payment schedule and 'ongoing' referencing (whatever that is)

Luckily mob rule seemed to get a) and b) overturned in the end but not before about 8 contractors had threatened to walk. They really shouldn't have started anyway with such ridiculous terms imposed but no-one had signed and clientco was still keep to get people in sharpish so these guys started with 'good faith'.

Luckily me and a couple of others had come through a different agency who were absolutely fine and who I still use today with no issues.

[GillsMan]

Worst I've seen is this little number:

The Service company shall not] for twelve months following the Termination Date solicit or endeavour to entice away from the Company the business or custom of a Customer or Prospective Customer with a view to
providing goods or services to that Customer in competition with any Restricted Business or otherwise induce, solicit or entice or endeavour to induce, solicit or entice any Customer to cease conducting, or reduce the amount of, business with the Company.

Service Company = MyCo Ltd.

Their definition of a Prospective Customer = any person, firm, company or entity to whom or which, during the period of six months prior to the Termination Date, the Company had submitted a tender, quotation, made a pitch or presentation or with whom or which it was otherwise negotiating for the supply of goods or services or with whom or which a Consultant or Service Company had material dealings at any time during the Relevant Period.

The Company = The Agency. The Agency = Silverlink Technologies.

Despite the fact the client was dead keen, this was just one of many completely unreasonable clauses and I relatively politely told them to do one and told the Client (a British telecommunications company) why.

[SueEllen]

Their definition of a Prospective Customer = any person, firm, company or entity to whom or which, during the period of six months prior to the Termination Date, the Company had submitted a tender, quotation, made a pitch or presentation or with whom or which it was otherwise negotiating for the supply of goods or services or with whom or which a Consultant or Service Company had material dealings at any time during the Relevant Period.
.

That would really work in a court of law...

Sometimes depending on the client it may be worth leaving unreasonable clauses in due to their unenforceability.

[GillsMan]

Argh, just replied to this topic by mistake. Should have posted here: http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...ml#post2066186

Sorry for the uber bump!