'I've just received a letter from the agency, saying my contract has been terminated with immediate effect - they ask me to sign and return the letter - should I do so?'

I've read the letter. So far as I can see, the agency are trying to get out of liability to pay you in respect of any notice period in a particularly sneaky way.

The letter doesn't actually say the agency is terminating your contract. What it says is 'This letter is to confirm that your contract will come to an end today. You will be paid to today. Please sign and return one copy of this letter to confirm your understanding and acceptance of this arrangement.'

This is a bit like those parcels that couriers sometimes deliver to you. They ask you to sign to acknowledge receipt - but buried fairly inconspicuously somewhere on the page are the printed words 'received in good condition'. So you open the parcel, find the contents appear to have been damaged; you complain to the supplier, who says they left him in good order, so it must have been damaged in transit.

When the courier is challenged about it, he comes up with this little gotcha - 'Oh no it wasn't me mate - not only were the goods delivered in good condition, but I've got a signature to prove it!' And, lo and behold, by this time a highlighter pen has been run over the words 'received in good condition', and there is your own signature underneath it - and you wonder how you can possibly have been so stupid as to sign it! You did of course have a very good reason for doing so - the courier was in a hurry, etc - but nothing changes the fact that you did actually sign it. (The remedy of course is to always put 'unexamined' next to your signature - but then you already knew that, didn't you..)

In the case of the parcel, the really negative effect of your signature against those words is that it undermines your credibility, when you try to claim that the goods were not in good condition, but in fact were damaged. Which is true? - it almost invites that most popular of cross-examiner's questions, 'were you lying then, or are you lying now?'

But back to your problem: at a quick read, you might think that all you're being asked to do is to sign to acknowledge receipt of the letter. But that's not the case at all - read it again!

You have a contract with this agency. What the letter in fact means is 'we the agency and you the Contractor agree that this contract will end immediately - and you accept that you won't get paid for any period after today'. Technically, by signing this letter you would be agreeing to a variation of the contract - the contract would end simply straightaway - and the signed letter would show that both parties agreed to that. And here, it's not that your credibility would be damaged - you would have given away all the rights you might otherwise have had to claim for payment in lieu of the notice period you'd otherwise have been entitled to.

So, having read the letter, you don't sign it. What then? You have not been told of any grounds on which they claimed to be entitled to terminate the contract early. So far as you are aware, there was no cause for complaint about your work. You've read the contract, and are clear that it says that if they want to terminate the contract early, then they are obliged to give you 4 weeks notice. What they have done is to tell you that the contract ends today. They do not have the right under the contract to do so. You have not agreed to them doing so. Therefore by doing so they are in breach of contract.

A victim of a breach of contract is entitled to be placed in the position in which (s)he would have been, had the contract been performed. The agency could have lawfully terminated your contact (ie without being in breach) on 4 weeks notice - so that's the period for which you're entitled to payment.

You are under an obligation to mitigate your loss - you should use reasonable efforts to try and find an alternative contract as soon as practicable (and be prepared to prove that you have used such reasonable efforts - so keep any relevant documents etc to enable you to do so). You will have to give credit against your claim for any earnings under another contract, if you find one. So if you have 2 weeks without work, and then start another contract at a lesser rate, you will be entitle to 2 weeks at the old contract rate, and a further 2 weeks at the difference between the rates. If on the other hand you get a new contract after 2 weeks at a higher rate, then you would simply be entitled to the first 2 weeks at the old contract rate.

So write to the agency, setting out your claim, and give them a reasonable period to respond (1 week should generally be enough) - set a deadline, day and time. And if they don't respond, then you should consider taking legal action through the County Court to recover your losses.

But remember - if you're asked to sign something - always, always read (and understand it!) first!