There is been much debate about the Right of Subtitution clause.
Contractors have lept on the clause as being an essential clause in a
contractual agreement in order to ensure they fall outside of the IR35
legislation.
The facts are:
- it not that clause alone which needs to be included.
- if you are an "expert" in your field, then you probably don't need it.
- if you do have a Right of Substitution clause in your contract, it should be
an unfettered right to substitute.
To continue on the last point....
Many clauses have statements which state that "...has the right to substitute
another representative of the Company to provide the Services provided that the
Client is satisfied that the proposed substitute possesses the necessary
skills, expertise and resources to perform the Services...."
This statement is not actually required. The reason being that if you do not
supply the services in the contract, by sending in someone without the skills,
then it is a breach of contract.
A more relevant term would be to say "Any costs incurred in providing a
substitute will be at the expense of the Company."
That nullifies the risk of sending in the substitute who cannot do the job.
If you put in the piece about the client having control over the substitute
choice, then it could lessen your chance of making it through IR35, if the
courts get mixed up with the issue.
So....don't put it in.
Published on Wednesday, July 19, 2000
© 2009 All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.