Contract termination
Discussion
AngryApples said:
But surely if it states supply until 31st January 2012 they would have to give some form of reasonable notice?
Usually a contract has a duration or end date. However, the company can terminate at any point they like provided that they follow the termination as laid out in the contract. Get looking for something new is all I can suggest. Chalk it up as a loss and make sure you read and agree to all the terms on the next one.I've been there myself so I know exactly what you're going through. In all likelihood the people who will have put the contract together will have made sure that they are legally covered.
It's all still too vague to assess... for instance, in a typical contractor situation let's say your contract is with an agent, and the agent then has a contract with the client. If you have an email from the client saying there's a month's reciprocal notice period, it doesn't matter because your contract isn't with them. If you have the email from the agent, then why isn't it in your contract?
bigandclever said:
It's all still too vague to assess... for instance, in a typical contractor situation let's say your contract is with an agent, and the agent then has a contract with the client. If you have an email from the client saying there's a month's reciprocal notice period, it doesn't matter because your contract isn't with them. If you have the email from the agent, then why isn't it in your contract?
Thanks B and CAs Bigandclever says, it depends on where that mail comes from as to what can or can not be done about it. I have no legal training so can't suggest much beyond advice. If it's been terminated then it's terminated. Depending on how much you stand to loose, is it really worth taking legal action?
Hi,
the email comes from a representative of the agency
I dont necessarily agree with everything thats been said so far
Particularly with reference to the contract - my contract is with the agency, I have no interest in their contract with the cleint as my legal contract is with them, not their client
It is quite clear in this situation that the client is more valuable to them than I am, thuse they are clearly prepared to attempt to brush me off rather than state clearly to their client that their approach to termination is unnaceptable and they should pay a reasonable penalty.
From what I can see, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 would appear to preclude them just terminating on a whim and obviously its been proved many times that just because a term exists within a contract doesnt make it fair?
UTCR 1977 -
S.3 - Exclusion of liability for breach of contract
S.3 applies where one party deals as a consumer or where there exists a standard form contract. The provisions are subject to the reasonableness test in s.11 and provide restrictions on the other party to the contract's ability to:
Exclude or restrict liability for breach of contract
Provide substantially different performance to that reasonably expected
Provide no performance at all
S.11 - The reasonableness test
The term is required to be a fair and reasonable one to include in the contract.
This is judged by all the circumstance which were known, or ought to have been known or in the contemplation of the parties
The fairness and reasonableness is decided at the time the contract is entered - not with hindsight knowing of the events which in fact occurred
Where the term is restricting rather than excluding liability regard is to be had to the resources of the party seeking to rely on the term and the availability of insurance.
The burden is on the party seeking to enforce the term to show that it was fair and reasonable.
the email comes from a representative of the agency
I dont necessarily agree with everything thats been said so far
Particularly with reference to the contract - my contract is with the agency, I have no interest in their contract with the cleint as my legal contract is with them, not their client
It is quite clear in this situation that the client is more valuable to them than I am, thuse they are clearly prepared to attempt to brush me off rather than state clearly to their client that their approach to termination is unnaceptable and they should pay a reasonable penalty.
From what I can see, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 would appear to preclude them just terminating on a whim and obviously its been proved many times that just because a term exists within a contract doesnt make it fair?
UTCR 1977 -
S.3 - Exclusion of liability for breach of contract
S.3 applies where one party deals as a consumer or where there exists a standard form contract. The provisions are subject to the reasonableness test in s.11 and provide restrictions on the other party to the contract's ability to:
Exclude or restrict liability for breach of contract
Provide substantially different performance to that reasonably expected
Provide no performance at all
S.11 - The reasonableness test
The term is required to be a fair and reasonable one to include in the contract.
This is judged by all the circumstance which were known, or ought to have been known or in the contemplation of the parties
The fairness and reasonableness is decided at the time the contract is entered - not with hindsight knowing of the events which in fact occurred
Where the term is restricting rather than excluding liability regard is to be had to the resources of the party seeking to rely on the term and the availability of insurance.
The burden is on the party seeking to enforce the term to show that it was fair and reasonable.
Edited by AngryApples on Monday 15th August 16:18
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff