27th April 2006, 05:54 PM
There has got be a contract somewhere! I see no reason why the ICE would not be applicable in the scenario you describe.
Either: the consultant can become an Employer, and the contract is between the consultant and the contractor. There will be another contract between the client (developer) and the consultant. This is dodgy and I'm trying to work out who is most at risk here! Depending on what sort of sums we are talking about - the contractor would want to be satisfied that the consultant (now the Employer) has the funds to pay him. He (the contactor) is not interested in the next link in the chain to the client, but only the party with whom he is contracted. This scenario would not occur in another discipline.
Or: the consultant becomes a Contractor, and the contract is between him and the client/developer (the Employer). There will be a sub-contract between the consultant-now-contractor and the "actual" contractor. Bea in mind that strictly speaking pay-when-paid contracts are illegal. Again the actual contractor needs to be satisfied that the consultant-contractor has the means to pay him.
I see the fault not being in the ICE contract but in the blurring of roles and responsibilities. A direct link between the client/developer and the (actual) contractor needs to be established.
I am assuming that we are talking about reasonably sized contracts of course. As Doc Pete says a mickey mouse job in 4 figures is more akin to having work done on your house, to pursue the construction analogy. It goes without saying that such a contract is buttoned up as tighly as possible as well though.... doesn't it????
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Either: the consultant can become an Employer, and the contract is between the consultant and the contractor. There will be another contract between the client (developer) and the consultant. This is dodgy and I'm trying to work out who is most at risk here! Depending on what sort of sums we are talking about - the contractor would want to be satisfied that the consultant (now the Employer) has the funds to pay him. He (the contactor) is not interested in the next link in the chain to the client, but only the party with whom he is contracted. This scenario would not occur in another discipline.
Or: the consultant becomes a Contractor, and the contract is between him and the client/developer (the Employer). There will be a sub-contract between the consultant-now-contractor and the "actual" contractor. Bea in mind that strictly speaking pay-when-paid contracts are illegal. Again the actual contractor needs to be satisfied that the consultant-contractor has the means to pay him.
I see the fault not being in the ICE contract but in the blurring of roles and responsibilities. A direct link between the client/developer and the (actual) contractor needs to be established.
I am assuming that we are talking about reasonably sized contracts of course. As Doc Pete says a mickey mouse job in 4 figures is more akin to having work done on your house, to pursue the construction analogy. It goes without saying that such a contract is buttoned up as tighly as possible as well though.... doesn't it????
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.