atw: Re: IR contracts

Gary :
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:50:54 +1100,  you wrote:
> My current contract has a (supposed) 4 weeks notice clause,
> but another sneaky clause would seem to vitiate that entirely.
>
> "The agrement may be terminated...
> (e) on either the company {agency} or the client terminating
> the agreement between themselves"
>
> Far as I can see, this gives me exactly zero notice. I don't
> worry too much about contract terms myself, and simply assume
> that the worst can happen at any time. As long as I'm paid
> what they said they'd pay me I'm fine. Anyone expecting public
> service conditions shouldn't be contracting.
>

Hmm.  That one's certainly open to debate, and VERY clumsy wording (Where do 
they get their drafting staff for this stuff.?) 

AND BE WARY.   If the instant causeless termination for a so-called  "six 
month" contract occurs, for example, in say, late November, early December,  
consider what you reckon your chances are of getting another job to cover the 
period till New Year recruitment starts again!   (Usually March if you're 
lucky.)    That was what was tried on me, and the 3-4mths were some of the 
worse I've spent. 

Certainly, contract parties would normally expect that the contract can be 
terminated by mutual agreement "between themselves". 

If it doesn't actually mean that, then it's probably nonsense, in the sense 
that it uses circular concepts.    "This agreement may be terminated by being 
terminated..."   suggests that it isn't a binding contract at all, and  would 
usually  be a "severable" clause -- rendered meaningless and ineffective, 
according to the prevailing views on contract law in NSW.

Context might add weight to an argument here.   For example, if there are 
separate provisions for termination "for cause" as there usually are (for when 
you rape the Managing Director and steal a pen while taking excessive 
lunch-breaks, drunk.) and these require various notices etc... then the chances 
are this clause would look even sillier.     In our case, the judge pointed out 
that it was plainly stupid that I would have been entitled to three week's 
notice for misbehaviour, but could be summarily sacked without notice or cause, 
and he used that as part of the basis for saying a "termination for 
convenience" clause could be stuck out of a contract as not applying.
    
     
I'd certainly ask for an immediate rewrite to a fairly standard ".... may be 
terminated by mutual agreement between the two parties...."         That way 
you'd very quickly find out what they thought the silly clause meant, at least.

--Peter M
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to 
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts: