ATTENTION ATTORNEYS! Anyone know about contract law?

[GH2001]

I own a business and have a contract with a local establishment for my services.

Is there any kind of violation in contract law if they sign a contract with another business to perform the same services I am performing with the intent of replacing me (telling me to hit the road after the fact)? This was all done without notifying me or terminating my contract without cause.

I know Sweets and AWK may know this.

This cannot be legal. I am pondering taking them to small claims (magistrate) in Ga.

Any thoughts?

[AWK]

I own a business and have a contract with a local establishment for my services.

Is there any kind of violation in contract law if they sign a contract with another business to perform the same services I am performing with the intent of replacing me (telling me to hit the road after the fact)? This was all done without notifying me or terminating my contract without cause.

I know Sweets and AWK may know this.

This cannot be legal. I am pondering taking them to small claims (magistrate) in Ga.

Any thoughts?

It all depends on the language specific to your contract. 

[GH2001]

It all depends on the language specific to your contract. 

I will have to look at it, but it runs to a certain date, requires notice of termination and I imagine there has to be something in the law that governs a contract being signed with someone else that supersedes yours and replaces it- ESPECIALLY before mine is even terminated. I was told about it AFTER the fact. Some kind of competition clause, law or something. Especially when you are being replaced.

[Saniflush]

I would suggest having someone kneecap'em.

[GH2001]

I would suggest having someone kneecap'em.

I would rather actually GET damages than to pay em out - but yeah, thats about how I feel. 

[Saniflush]

I would rather actually GET damages than to pay em out - but yeah, thats about how I feel. 

I never said cop to it.

[Vandy Vol]

I will have to look at it, but it runs to a certain date, requires notice of termination and I imagine there has to be something in the law that governs a contract being signed with someone else that supersedes yours and replaces it- ESPECIALLY before mine is even terminated. I was told about it AFTER the fact. Some kind of competition clause, law or something. Especially when you are being replaced.

In general, there is the freedom to contract.  There are very few laws which govern the substantive content of a contract.  If you want to create contracts with two different people to do the same job, then you can choose to do so.  Now, there are a certain number of things that can void any contract, but what you are talking about is not one of those things.  There is nothing against the law about signing a contract with two people at once to do the same job.  As AWK mentioned, it all depends upon what the contract(s) say(s).  If there is an exclusivity clause which prevents them from contracting with anyone else before terminating you, then yes, what they are doing would contradict your contract.

Also keep in mind that with contract law, the remedy you're going to get is only going to compensate you according to the terms of the contract.  If they are to give you two weeks notice and two weeks pay before terminating your contract, yet they don't do so and instead immediately terminate you, then a court is probably only going to award you two weeks of pay for the breach of contract.  The goal is to give you the same benefits (or as close as possible to the same benefits) as you would receive under the provisions of the contract had it not been breached.  Don't expect punitive damage awards based upon intentional infliction of emotional distress or anything extreme.

[GH2001]

In general, there is the freedom to contract.  There are very few laws which govern the substantive content of a contract.  If you want to create contracts with two different people to do the same job, then you can choose to do so.  Now, there are a certain number of things that can void any contract, but what you are talking about is not one of those things.  There is nothing against the law about signing a contract with two people at once to do the same job.  As AWK mentioned, it all depends upon what the contract(s) say(s).  If there is an exclusivity clause which prevents them from contracting with anyone else before terminating you, then yes, what they are doing would contradict your contract.

Also keep in mind that with contract law, the remedy you're going to get is only going to compensate you according to the terms of the contract.  If they are to give you two weeks notice and two weeks pay before terminating your contract, yet they don't do so and instead immediately terminate you, then a court is probably only going to award you two weeks of pay for the breach of contract.  The goal is to give you the same benefits (or as close as possible to the same benefits) as you would receive under the provisions of the contract had it not been breached.  Don't expect punitive damage awards based upon intentional infliction of emotional distress or anything extreme.

Understand, but in reality its not the same job. This place has several contracts already to do this job (its a major university but not Auburn), and we all know each other. What happened here is that one of the existing contractors signed an exclusive contract to provide 100% of the services, which indirectly ends my contract. The problem I have is that I was told about the contract termination after the deal replacing me was done. It just doesnt sound like something kosher to me. It wasnt like they signed a contract with another business to do the same job and work side by side with me. They signed one to REPLACE me (and the others) without even telling us until after the fact. They also did not follow the "days notice" provision.

[Saniflush]

Okay.  Everyone else wants to ask but is afraid to.



Do you suck at your job?

[GH2001]

Okay.  Everyone else wants to ask but is afraid to.

Do you suck at your job?

No sir. This was about money and modular setup. They wanted to deal with one company only. They were dealing with about 4-5 of us and I think it was a hassle to them. In fact, the guy in charge said we probably gave them the best service of the 5. We definitely had the lowest failure rate of any the 5. The company that signed the contract was just the BIGGEST one and was probably the only one who could do the whole thing with no questions asked. And thats fine, it was just the manner in which they did it that perturbed me. I actually have a waiting list of folks needing the services and I don't ever have enough hours to provide them, so I turn a lot of people down.

[Saniflush]

No sir. This was about money and modular setup. They wanted to deal with one company only. They were dealing with about 4-5 of us and I think it was a hassle to them. In fact, the guy in charge said we probably gave them the best service of the 5. We definitely had the lowest failure rate of any the 5. The company that signed the contract was just the BIGGEST one and was probably the only one who could do the whole thing with no questions asked. And thats fine, it was just the manner in which they did it that perturbed me. I actually have a waiting list of folks needing the services and I don't ever have enough hours to provide them, so I turn a lot of people down.

Just asking.

i never really expect to get a different answer to that question but it's fun to see what people say. 

I'm back to knee cap'em

[GH2001]

Just asking.

i never really expect to get a different answer to that question but it's fun to see what people say. 

I'm back to knee cap'em

I suck at hitting a baseball that travels over 65 mph.
I suck at any kind of plumbing.
I suck at running hurdles.
I suck at laying drywall.
I suck at playing the banjo.


I do not suck at this however. Point? I will admit when I suck at something. And I definitely wouldn't make it my livelihood. I'll give ya an honest answer SANI. 

[Kaos]

90% of my money comes in from contracts signed with me by state agencies. 

The key to this situation is their out clause.  Almost all contracts have language that allows either party to opt out given certain circumstances. 

If they can provide verification of those circumstances (whatever they might be) then you'll have a hard time fighting it. 

In the situation you're in, I think the better part of valor would be to be super fucking nice, tell them how much you appreciated their business and let them know you'll be available to help them down the road should they need it.   Then pester them about once a month. 

If the company they've contracted with struggles -- as you've indicated they will -- you'll get it back in better shape than when you left it in terms of security.

[AWK]

This is what you can expect.  If your contract states that the services you provide will last until 2011, then you will receive compensatory damages from when they breach until that point.  The only issue is whether they have an out, like Kaos mentioned.

[Kaos]

Before you go down that road, too, you should consider the ramifications. 

How much money are you talking about?  No matter what the outcome, there will be a select group of your potential clients who will brand you as litigious.  If you sue and win, word gets out that you're a sue-er. 

The company you sued will casually mention that they were sued in conversation with their peers. 

Got to weigh the potential damages against the anticipated outcome. 

A ten million dollar contract with the state?  I'm going to sue.  A $2000 maintenance agreement with an individual department?  I'm going to smile and take it. 

[wesfau2]

You're getting mostly sound advice here.

They were shady?  Bullshit, they were businessmen. 

Unless this is a very big contract ($250K+), I'd follow Kaos's advice and kill 'em with kindness.  Sounds like you have enough demand for your service that you won't tank with the loss of this contract.  Don't get petty and seek retribution for some perceived wrong.

[Tiger Wench]

I am not a contracts attorney but I play one at my job.  And on tv.

Unless you have some sort of exclusive arrangement, then you are pretty much SOL.

And one of the first things my company looks at when hiring a vendor is their litigation history, both with our company and with our competitors.  Just saying.

Sorry though - I know that sucks.  You didn't even get a chance to compete on a level playing field.

[Vandy Vol]

Understand, but in reality its not the same job. This place has several contracts already to do this job (its a major university but not Auburn), and we all know each other. What happened here is that one of the existing contractors signed an exclusive contract to provide 100% of the services, which indirectly ends my contract. The problem I have is that I was told about the contract termination after the deal replacing me was done. It just doesnt sound like something kosher to me. It wasnt like they signed a contract with another business to do the same job and work side by side with me. They signed one to REPLACE me (and the others) without even telling us until after the fact. They also did not follow the "days notice" provision.

I assume you are speaking of Alabama, which is an at-will employment state.  This means that you can end your employment at any time for any reason without notice, and your employer can end your employment at any time for any reason without notice.  The only point at which you must be given notice in Alabama is if you have an employment agreement which states that notice must be given.  Otherwise, under Alabama employment law, they don't have to inform you of when they will fire you, nor do you have to inform them of when you will quit.

If there is a "day's notice" provision in your contract which requires them to give you one day of notice before you are terminated, then the most you're going to get out of any court is one day's pay.  Your company decided to terminate you and did so without a day's notice.  If they had not breached the contract, then you would have had one extra day of income at work.  Because a court is simply going to attempt to give you the benefits of the contract had it not been breached, you would receive a judgment that is the equivalent of one day's pay.  I would imagine that your attorney's fees and the associated court costs will be more than what it's worth.  As others have pointed out, you also have to consider the litigious reputation that you might acquire, making yourself unmarketable to future employers.

[The Prowler]

Before you go down that road, too, you should consider the ramifications. 

How much money are you talking about?  No matter what the outcome, there will be a select group of your potential clients who will brand you as litigious.  If you sue and win, word gets out that you're a sue-er. 

The company you sued will casually mention that they were sued in conversation with their peers. 

Got to weigh the potential damages against the anticipated outcome. 

A ten million dollar contract with the state?  I'm going to sue.  A $2000 maintenance agreement with an individual department?  I'm going to smile and take it. 

^^This^^

I am not a contracts attorney but I play one at my job.  And on tv.

Unless you have some sort of exclusive arrangement, then you are pretty much SOL.

And one of the first things my company looks at when hiring a vendor is their litigation history, both with our company and with our competitors.  Just saying.

Sorry though - I know that sucks.  You didn't even get a chance to compete on a level playing field.

And......^^This^^

[CCTAU]

I suck at laying drywall.

Does laying drywall hurt your dick?

When ever I had the need to implement drywall, I would always "hang" it.