'After 2 weeks working on a contract I was told by another Contractor that I did not know my job, and marched off site. I've had nothing in writing from the agent, but he's told me on the phone that the client won't pay for a notice period.'
I've had a chance to read your contract. It provides for either party to have the right to terminate on two weeks notice. The only other express provision relating to termination is a clause which states that 'an Assignment is subject to the continuation of the contract between' the agency and the Client, and that if that contract is terminated for any reason, 'this Assignment shall cease with immediate effect'.
What has happened is that another Contractor, on behalf of the Client, has required you to leave the site. It's the Client's site, and the Client has the right to decide who is and who is not on it. Whether the Client was right or wrong, you've no legal grounds for complaint against the Client.
Your contract is of course with the Agency and not with the Client. However, it seems clear to me that by removing you from the site, the Client is indicating pretty clearly that it is no longer prepared to be bound by the terms of whatever contract it had with the Agency for your services. Depending on the terms of that contract, for the Client to act in such a way will either amount to a lawful termination (if that contract allows termination without notice), or a breach of that contract. If it amounts to a breach, then it's also fairly clear that the Agency accepted the breach as terminating that contract.
From your point of view, does it matter whether the contract between the Client and Agency was terminated lawfully, or if the Client was in breach of contract? I have to say that in the light of the terms of your particular contract with the Agency, it doesn't. The contract between you and the agency is expressed to be 'subject to the continuation of the contract between' Agency and Client. This means that if the Agency-Client contract ends, then your contract with the Agency also ends. Automatically. All the Agency would have to establish in order to show that their contract with you has terminated is that the contract they had with the Client has ended, for whatever reason.
What about notice? Notice is simply a means to an end - the end in this case being termination of a contract. Contracts can end by a variety of means, of which the giving of notice (if the contract itself allows for notice) is only one. Expiry is another, where the contract is for a fixed term - when such a contract has run its course, you expect neither to give nor to receive notice. Breach of contract by one party can be accepted by the other as terminating the contract. And the contract itself may provide that it terminates on the happening of an external event - in which case the words simply mean what they say, and if the event occurs then the contract ends, ipso facto, as they say - just like that. Without notice. And that's what happened here.
Notices don't actually have to be in writing - unless the contract itself says otherwise. Here, notice was not required - so it makes no difference. Not putting anything in writing might well have been discourteous, but from the legal point of view it would have been unnecessary.
None of this of course affects your right to be paid for the work you have done, up to the actual moment when the contract terminated.
In your case the right to payment is expressed to be subject to the production of signed timesheets. It sometimes happens that a Client's representative will refuse to sign a timesheet, even if the Contractor can prove he's worked the hours. That creates an awkward situation - on the face of it, the Contractor has no claim against the agent, because the event giving rise to entitlement to payment (production of signed timesheets) has not arisen. And, again on the face of it, the Contractor has no contractual relationship with the Client. The Contractor has to fall back on claiming that it was an implied term of the contract with the agency (under the officious bystander principle) that the Client would not refuse to sign timesheets without proper cause - and/or claiming directly against the Client on a quantum meruit basis, on the grounds that the Client can't reasonably have expected to get the benefits of the work for nothing.
3rd April 1998
I'd really appreciate your feedback on this FAQ - so mail me and tell me what you think of it, if it's been useful to you, or let me know of any specific problem you have where I may be able to help.
[Return to Roger Sinclair's 'Welcome' page]
No liability is accepted for any inaccuracy in the information in these pages - see full disclaimer
© Roger Sinclair roger@egos.co.uk 1998 - All rights reserved - see full copyright details
The information on these pages is provided free and for information only, and is provided 'as is'. Whilst believed to be correct, it is in no way comprehensive. It is provided for your interest only and is not intended to be relied on as formal legal advice. The posting of information on these pages is not intended to create a lawyer-client relationship, and you should not act or rely on this information without seeking professional advice. No liability is accepted therefore for any errors, or for any losses that may be incurred if it is relied on.
You may read these pages on-line, and download them to read later, for your own personal use.
This copyright notice must appear on every page that you print from here.
You must not redistribute these pages or any part of them in any form or medium without first obtaining my consent.
You are welcome to set up links to this website from others.
[Return to Roger Sinclair's 'Welcome' page]