'I was interviewed for and offered a contract by an Agency. The essential terms - rate, hours, dates, client, and work location - were all agreed orally. I knew the location was in a bad area, and asked for an on-site parking space. I was told this would be provided, and so I said I would accept the offer. The contract arrived two days before I was due to start. There was no mention of the parking space, so I added this, signed and returned the contract, and started work. On arrival the Client told me that there were no car parking spaces available, and the agency told me the term I'd added was unacceptable. The position still had not been resolved by the end of the week, when the Agency said they were terminating the contract and not paying anything in lieu of notice - they say that since the document wasn't signed, there was no contract. They say they'll pay me for the hours I worked - but only if I acknowledge that it's in 'full and final settlement'.'

As you rightly point out, all the key terms were discussed and agreed at the interview, which ended with you unequivocally saying 'yes'. You then proceeded to start work - and were allowed to do so. On the other hand, the document which the agency sent out contained a term saying words to the effect that 'this contract is not binding until signed by both parties'. Now it may be the case that the contract as set out in that document was not binding until signed by both (which it never was) - but that does not mean to say that there was no other contract between you and the agency. It often happens in real life that an oral agreement is made, and then superceded by a written one. Sometimes the parties don't agree on all the terms of the written one, and we then have to ask whether the earlier oral agreement is binding or not.

We approach this from first principles:

1. Have the parties - judged by what they said and did - reached sufficient agreement on the material terms - was there consensus ad idem?
2. Is there 'consideration' - does each party put something into the deal?
3. Was there mutual intent to create legal relations?

Looked at against the background of the interview, and of the fact that you did actually start work - and were allowed to do so - it seems clear to me that all the essential elements of a contract were present. Therefore, the initial oral agreement was binding, both on you, and on the agency.

The next question is, what were the contract terms - particularly in relation to (1) the car parking space, and (2) whether the contract could be terminated by the agency giving notice, and if so, what notice?

So far as the car parking space is concerned, the position is that you asked and were told that a space would be available, and you made clear that you were relying on this in taking your decision to accept the contract. It turned out that there was no such space available for you. This has all the legal hallmarks of a misrepresentation. The agency was in a better position to know whether a space would be available than you were. It seems likely that you would be able to show that the misrepresentation was, at the least, negligent. When at the end of the interview you said 'yes', the representation probably became incorporated as a term of the (oral) contract. As a result of this, when it became clear that there was not in fact such a space available for you (ie that there had been a misrepresentation), you had the rights to (1) rescind the contract - ie to walk away; (2) unless the agency could show that they had reasonable grounds to believe that the representation had been true up to the time the (oral) contract was made, to claim damages; and (3) to claim damages for breach of contract.

So far as notice is concerned, it seems there were no discussions and no express agreement on the point. We therefore have to consider whether or not a term providing for the agency to give you notice should be implied into the (oral) contract. It seems to me that a term providing for the agency to be able to give reasonable notice to terminate could properly be implied under the 'officious bystander' principle - in other words, I suspect a Court would conclude that if someone standing on the sidelines when the contract had been formed had said 'shouldn't you include provision for the contract to be terminated on notice?', both parties would have said 'yes, obviously'. And what would 'reasonable' notice have been? Probably one month, possibly less.

So what then are your rights? In my view, you are certainly entitled to be paid for the time you have worked. You are also entitled to reasonable notice - or to payment in lieu. And if the agency hadn't terminated the contract, you could yourself have rescinded it, on the grounds of their misrepresentation - and claimed damages. I'd certainly hesitate before accepting their offer in 'full and final settlement' - you're entitled to more than that!