3rd July 2008, 02:09 PM
Posted by Unit of 1:
Normally the Consultant and Contractor would both be separately employed by the Employer. However, it is also possible for the Employer and Consultant to be the same, with the caveat that the Consultant is a named individual, not a company. So, on some occasions, the company I work for is the Employer, while I as an individual am the Consultant.
1 - they had the expertise in contracts, which the IFA did not, and were willing to provide it at no charge;
2 - they had a specialist publishing house that already publishes a series of related contracts, and were willing to publish this one as part of that series, whereas the IFA had no such facility;
3 - the ICE series of contracts has a long history and benefits from widespread trust and credibility with potential Employers, so production of this new contract as part of that series enabled it to benefit from that trust and credibility;
4 - the ICE and other engineering bodies represented on the committee that wrote the contract were keen to help, because they thought it was in the mutual interest of their membership and the membership of the IFA (and all other archaeologists), to make a standard contract for archaeological works available.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:So far the structure outlined by you is that there is an Employer. This Employer employs a consultant and I think that this very same employer also employs the archaeological contractor. We would appear to have two contracts with the employer bundled into one. Alternatively it could be that in the bundle the Employer employs a consultant who then employs an archaeological contractor.Yes, the same Employer employs both the Consultant and the Contractor, but separately, not under the same contract. Also, the Conditions of Contract under discussion are aimed principally at the contract between the Employer and the Contractor - I think that I outlined typical contractual arrangements with the Consultant in a previous post (they can vary quite a lot).
Normally the Consultant and Contractor would both be separately employed by the Employer. However, it is also possible for the Employer and Consultant to be the same, with the caveat that the Consultant is a named individual, not a company. So, on some occasions, the company I work for is the Employer, while I as an individual am the Consultant.
Quote:quote:Is the contract specifically saying, this contract has nothing to do with the engineers? Then why is it being presented thought the auspices of the engineers? Is there not a possibility that the IFA could release a copy of the contractual relationship at a generic level?The contract was written and published in partnership with the ICE for several very good reasons:
1 - they had the expertise in contracts, which the IFA did not, and were willing to provide it at no charge;
2 - they had a specialist publishing house that already publishes a series of related contracts, and were willing to publish this one as part of that series, whereas the IFA had no such facility;
3 - the ICE series of contracts has a long history and benefits from widespread trust and credibility with potential Employers, so production of this new contract as part of that series enabled it to benefit from that trust and credibility;
4 - the ICE and other engineering bodies represented on the committee that wrote the contract were keen to help, because they thought it was in the mutual interest of their membership and the membership of the IFA (and all other archaeologists), to make a standard contract for archaeological works available.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished