On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 14:10, James Kaufman wrote:
> <snip>
> My contract reads that I will be paid a specific hourly rate for "hours
> billable and paid for by <client>." Since Karlsson won't be getting
> paid, they *might* not pay me (they are "thinking" about it). From
> now on I will not sign a contract for which my pay is determined by the
> contract house getting paid. I did the work. I should get the money.
>
> What do you think? Is that clause normal for contractors? Is that one
> of the acceptable risks?
I was subcontracting to a consulting company for 9 months between last
year and this year, and my contract had the same stipulation.
There's a big difference between contracting to a company who is paying
you to do a project directly for them, and (sub)contracting to a
consulting shop who needs to get paid by the client before they can
afford to pay their contractors.
Because of the above stipulation in my contract, I took a nasty hit from
one client, like you. I did work out an arrangement with the company I
was working with, so that they paid me up to 50% of outstanding invoices
even when they had not been paid yet. However, I was left open to the
risk of a "charge-back" if a client then refused to pay. Thankfully, it
never happened. The loss I took was on an unpaid invoice, so I will be
writing it off on this year's taxes.
--
Dave Sherman | "They that can give up essential liberty
MCSE, MCSA, CCNA | to obtain a little temporary safety
| deserve neither liberty nor safety."
| - Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20020824/715f0a65/attachment.pgp