[Peter Sweeney]

Would be interested to get the thoughts of some of you on this and if any have seen it before.

I do alot of work for a local cleaning firm of a fair size. This includes carpet cleaning and builders cleans. They are good payers and never had a problem with them in that respect. Having worked for them a few years they are now introducing a new subcontractors contract.

In the contract it states that if they do not get paid for a job by one of their clients for a job I do then I will not get paid. This does not relate to not doing the job properly or anything like that its just a black and white clause.

I was gob smacked when I first read it. What do you think?

Pete

[derek west]

if you don't sign it, someone else will.

don't see the problem myself, but if you don't need the work and it bothers you then walk.

[Simon@arenaclean]

I have turned down several jobs that contain a penality clause, it relies too much on others completeing thier task and I'm not happy when it's out of my control. I would suggest theirs terms are unreasonable, as you are directly contracted to them and not a third party. I'm aware a lot business is built on trust and this seems to me to break that trust, it maybe you continue for years with no problem but it suggests to me they may fore see a reason to need this clause. If it was me I would check if this is enforcable and if not let them know or walk away.

[Paul Redden Countryfresh]

That's not on, thats no loyalty for your loyalty over the years, your contract is with your contractor not his client.
I know you would do the gentleman thing if your client wouldn't pay or went belly up.

This happened to me in the past, but the boss paid me even tho his firm went belly up.

[Mike Halliday]

ask them how many clients in the last year  have not paid

work out what percentage you would lose which might be 10% so increase your prices by 10% to insure against any future losses.

shops increases prices by 5% to cover theft, banks build into their charges an amount to cover bad debt

you need to do the same

[Peter Sweeney]

My biggest concern would be on a large scale builders clean like the one I am doing at the moment. The costs (mine) to run are £10k +. Can you imagine the position I would be in if it happened?

Thats an interesting point Mike and one I shall raise when he asks me to sign them in the morning (which at this point I plan not to)

Pete

[Mike Halliday]

ask them what checks they do for credit worthiness on companies  before accepting them as clients.

if they are asking you to take some risk on future clients then you should be given certain assurances that they take on clients responsibly

[Peter Sweeney]

To be fair Mike I know they already do this and fairly comprehensively too.

[from edge2edge]

Evening Pete   I personally arent involved in woppers like 10k jobs and just couldnt afford not to be paid for much smaller jobs(got stung for £8k once but still paid my good mate Jon the 1k i owed him even though it was in the form of equipment etc).I now do small fry stuff so even if i wasnt paid i can still pay my mate what i said i would even if it means me being out of pocket..................Alan

[Paul Heath]

You invoice them direct, i presume, therefore the contract is with them and that makes them responisble for paying you.
They gave you the work, not the firm they are working for.
Its a sign of the times....everybody is trying to cover themselves.
Would they pay you 50% deposit towards the job before you start? probably not.
They want there cake and to eat it as well.
How do you know they have not been paid ?
like i said they have contracted you...that makes them accountable for paying you.

[mark joyce]

the reason they are making 10-20-50% on top of your charges are because they are taking the risk dont let them pass the risk on to you without you benefiting from the contract.  I would find some one else to work for mate sounds like they are setting you up for a hit or at least expecting a hit 

[CARPET KNIGHTS]

ditto

[Steve Chapman]

The only reason they are including the clause is because they foresee it happening, so they covering themselves and making you take the hit for it.

If theres alot of money involved then i personally wouldnt risk it, one non payment could wipe out any profit you've made previously.

Its decisions like this that can either make or break a business.

Regards
Steve

[Paul Heath]

Another way of doing it could be to put stage payments in your terms...say 33% when you start, 33% when your halfway through the job, then the remaining on completion.

[Mr Dvae]

i believe you can insure against such potential problems

Dave

[Simon Gerrard]

Spoke to my son who is a lawyer about this. It's a bit naughty to say the least but if you sign up to it, you will have to live with it which if there is big money at stake and you can't afford to lose it then don't sign it. Also worth holding out on that clause as they may be looking for the gullible. But willing to forgo that clause to those willing to challenge it.

[Peter Sweeney]

mmmm interesting.

Did wonder if that clause in common law would be unenforceable so thanks Simon. I did study law and remember quite clearly that contracts do not overrule law and even (in some cases) common (as opposed to criminal) law. The problem with common law (ie non criminal) is that it is so subjective.

The comments are much in line with what I have been thinking and has in part enforced my thoughts and in others given me some ideas on how to approach this. Whats most difficult is that this Client gives me so much work (and indeed thinks very highly of me) so seems like I have a decision to make.

thanks everyone.

[homenclean]

If times become tough for them how can you guarantee they wont just say th client hasnt paid to avoid paying you?

Companies are going bust left right and centre at the moment and you are been asked to contribute to their safe guard.

If they instruct you then your contract is with them not the third party. The job is ultimately their resposibility.

If this firm goes bust the third party wont pay you so why should you cover their liabilities.

John

[Simon Gerrard]

You can also claim that the economic lure of the work acted as kind of duress and left you with no choice than to sign.
Also, you are working for them and not their client, so they are liable for your bills. I think they are trying it on.

Simon

[Griffus]

This is a fairly standard clause and one that if argued will just lose you the work.