Posts Tagged ‘contracts’

When is a contractor not a contractor?

Friday, July 29th, 2011

In order to determine whether an individual is an employee or self-employed contractor it is necessary to look at what both parties agreed. This is typically reflected in the written terms of a contract, but may not be.

In Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher, 20 valeters described themselves as self-employed, paid their own tax, purchased their own insurance, uniforms and materials, and signed contracts which said they could choose when to attend work and send along a substitute worker. In fact, it was always intended that they would have to attend work and undertake that work themselves; the business would not have operated otherwise. The Supreme Court held that the valeters showed that the written agreement between the parties entered into was not reflected in the terms. So the true relationship was that of an employer and employee.

Previously, as long as the written contract is not a ‘sham’, (which was a high threshold test), the written terms prevailed. Now, this approach is too narrow. Employers should now bear in mind that a skilfully drafted written contract (which this one was) designed to make someone a contractor not an employee, will be disregarded if there is evidence (as there was here) that a different agreement was actually reached.

Hayley Roberts

Hayley Roberts
0115 908 4862
hroberts@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 9.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Putting the “gross” in gross negligence

Wednesday, May 11th, 2011

Unlike other jurisdictions, courts in the UK have not normally made a distinction between gross negligence and negligence of any other kind (para 54).

In a recent case however where a set of terms and conditions excluded liability for negligence “other than gross negligence or wilful default”, the court held that a distinction does exist and that an (otherwise negligent) failure to exercise proper skill and care might not amount to gross negligence unless there was also (for example) an “indifference to an obvious risk”.

It’s a distinction that may well be seized upon by those drafting contracts for suppliers – being grossly negligent suggests a greater lack of care than mere negligence, and a greater hurdle to be overcome in the event of a claim. From a customer’s perspective it is a distinction worth looking out for if you want to ensure you have a remedy for mere (trivial) negligence on the part of those providing financial or other services and want to ensure you receive the highest standards of care.

Posted by Richard Nicholas, who specialises in commercial, IT and outsourcing agreements, complex projects for private and public sector clients, collaboration, distribution & agency contracts, e-commerce and consumer law.

Richard Nicholas

Richard Nicholas
0121 237 3992
rnicholas@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Lack of Mutuality allows contractor to get around HMRC

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

The rights of an employer to terminate a contract without notice could be key in deciding whether an independent contractor, trading through a limited company, has to comply with tax avoidance measure IR35.

In MBF Design Services Limited v HMRC the tax tribunal decided that the employer’s right to terminate Mr Fitzpatrick’s contract without notice was “characteristic of a contract for services but quite foreign to the world of employment”. Against this background, other terms of the contract which could be seen as confirming his employee status were given less weight.

This will give some comfort to contractors working on large manufacturing, IT or construction projects where contractors are required to use certain systems and procedures alongside employees, but have no true guarantee of work from week to week.

For employers seeking maximum flexibility from their independent contractors it does give an additional argument “after all…”, they can now explain to would-be contractors working for them “this clause helps you retain your independence ….”

Posted by Richard Nicholas, who specialises in commercial, IT and outsourcing agreements, complex projects for private and public sector clients, collaboration, distribution & agency contracts, e-commerce and consumer law.

Richard Nicholas

Richard Nicholas
0121 237 3992
rnicholas@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 6.0/10 (2 votes cast)

Send them back… but please pay the postage!

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

Consumers who return goods purchased online or over the telephone must be able to recover any initial delivery costs as well as the price paid for the goods following a recent case before the ECJ. However the cost of returning the goods can still be passed on to the consumer.

The case concerned the interpretation of the Distance Selling Directive Articles 6 (1) & (2) which allows a consumer to cancel a contract within 7 days, without incurring any charges.

Currently many sales terms require consumers to forfeit any delivery costs they might have paid when they bought the goods. It now seems likely that companies will need to change their terms – and some who might have relied on a customer’s reluctance to pay postage to avoid the full cost of returns may finally have to take the legislation seriously.  For companies that supply large items to customers such as sofas, fridges and household furniture this is likely to increase the cost of doing business online.

Ryan Harrison

Posted by Ryan Harrison
0121 237 3950
rharrison@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Was the recession a force majeure event?

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

The UK has just this week reportedly emerged from recession but the pain is still being felt by suppliers and customers throughout the UK.

It has been the cause of many breached contracts, failed deliveries and missed payments over the last few months, a fact that’s unlikely to change as a result of the economic growth figures.

But what if you can no longer perform your part of a bargain because the funding you thought you had in place is no longer available? Should you be able to escape your obligations?

What about if you were aware of a clause in your contract allowing you to escape liability for “force majeure events”?

Sadly for the purchaser of an executive jet aircraft whose case was heard this month, such a clause, by itself, may not help.

It seems only right that force majeure should not include economic downturns, particularly where it is possible for the parties to deal with a lack of funding another way – by using a “hardship” clause or to make the deal dependent upon the purchaser first obtaining funding.

For those suppliers facing unwilling purchasers (or would-be purchasers waiting for deliveries) this case is likely to be welcomed. The recession (and its consequences) wasn’t a force majeure event, nor should it be treated as one, but rather a challenge that buyers and sellers must face together on their own terms.

Richard Nicholas

Posted by Richard Nicholas
0121 237 3992
rnicholas@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.11_1134]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)