Company has transferred team to another company, does this count as breaking contact? Suppose a UK employee who works for company A, where Company A is owned by company B, and parent company B has created a new company, company C. Company A is now transferring all assets about the company, employees included, to company C. The whole chain of command, boss, CEO, CTO, etc will change, processes will no doubt change. Such a change was dictated rather than discussed and agreed with the employees of company A. There is nothing specific about such a situation in the employment contract, so hopefully there can be some presumption about "standard employment law", whatever that may entail to a layman such as myself. How might this affect a contract? If a person wanted to get out of a contract after such changes were made, would this be sufficient to be a break in existing contract and thus allow the employee to get out without serving notice?
This should probably be handled under TUPE — The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 as amended by The Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 2014. Those regulations apply to "a transfer of an undertaking, business or part of an undertaking or business situated immediately before the transfer in the United Kingdom to another person where there is a transfer of an economic entity which retains its identity" Broadly, there must be some consultation but you cannot be forced to change the terms of your contract to your material detriment (for example, the date of the month you are paid might change, but your work and salary would not). This consultation should establish that there is no material detriment (carry on reading here). Regulation 13 provides (2) Long enough before a relevant transfer to enable the employer of any affected employees to consult the appropriate representatives of any affected employees, the employer shall inform those representatives of— (a) the fact that the transfer is to take place, the date or proposed date of the transfer and the reasons for it; (b) the legal, economic and social implications of the transfer for any affected employees; (c) the measures which he envisages he will, in connection with the transfer, take in relation to any affected employees or, if he envisages that no measures will be so taken, that fact; and (d) if the employer is the transferor, the measures, in connection with the transfer, which he envisages the transferee will take in relation to any affected employees who will become employees of the transferee after the transfer by virtue of regulation 4 or, if he envisages that no measures will be so taken, that fact. (6) An employer of an affected employee who envisages that he will take measures in relation to an affected employee, in connection with the relevant transfer, shall consult the appropriate representatives of that employee with a view to seeking their agreement to the intended measures. If you refuse to accept the transfer you are deemed to have resigned (Regulation 4(8)), unless the "transfer involves or would involve a substantial change in working conditions to [your] material detriment", where you can be deemed to have been dismissed (Regulation 4(9)), and potentially unfairly dismissed. That would be for an Employment Tribunal to decide. But you cannot exit the successor company except in accord with your contract, including any notice period. The 2014 amended Regulations deal principally with the issue of redundancy after transfer, which is specifically allowed for "economic, technical or organisational reasons", such as the new company deciding to rationalise operations in a location 300 miles away from your normal base. In those circumstances you can be made redundant if you don't move with your job or accept redeployment. [This is what happened to me.] Note that every TUPE transfer is unique, and while yours will be subject to the Regulations, the wrinkles in your particular case (a) aren't present in your question and (b) will best be answered by a specialist employment lawyer, particularly as to whether any necessary changes to your contract are to your "material detriment".
What happens to a corporation, or any of its executives, when that corporation is dissolving but has unpaid state franchise tax fees that it does not have the assets to pay? You can't get blood out of a turnip, even if you are the tax collector. This said, if assets were transferred without consideration to someone, the tax due could be recovered from the recipient of the assets in a fraudulent transfer action against that recipient. Can these corporation liabilities transfer to their executives? Depends upon what the applicable state statute says. More than one state has franchise taxes and the consequences for violating them are not the same. The magnitude of the taxes are also not the same. In some states it is basically an annually filing fee of a couple of hundred dollars or less, and simply forcing the corporation to dissolve for nonpayment would be considered punishment enough. In California, franchise taxes amount to a full fledged and significant state level corporate income tax. Many states impose personal liability as a matter of law on directors of corporations that pay dividends or make liquidating distributions to owners of a corporation when it is insolvent.
The fact that you're not a native speaker of English doesn't alter the legal situation. If you literally had no understanding of English but for some reason you signed a piece of paper, then you might argue that there was no agreement in the first place, but obviously you do speak some English. Most people don't actually understand what contracts mean (on both sides). Contracts are still enforced, based on what the contract says. The move-in data is proposed, not firm, and it even indicates what the charges are if your circumstances change and the dates have to change (whereas is their circumstances change, they wouldn't have a basis for charging extra). It also does say that there will be no refund if you change your mind. So the piece of paper says "No refund". The problem seems to be that there's an "agent" whose statements you relied on, who is ultimately responsible for this problem, and s/he implied that you could get a refund. It's not clear what kind of "agent" this is (is he working for you, or for the owners?). You'd have a somewhat different legal basis depending on which it is, but you could sue someone in either event, assuming that you could actually persuade the court that you were given false information which you relied on. The statement "they will refund your money if the guy doesn't move out by the 16th" is false; the statement "they may refund your money if the guy doesn't move out by the 16th" is true. If the latter was the statement that you relied on, then you knew (or should have known) that that isn't a promise, it's just a guess, and if you read the piece of paper you know that it's a promise with no basis. So I would say it comes down to establishing what promise was made to you. Arguing that the agent "made" you sign isn't going to get you anywhere (unless you can prove actual coersion).
I had a contract with a company, but that company changed its name. Is my contract still enforceable? Yes, because what matters is the entity itself. A contract is not stricken merely because one or more parties changed names or labels.
The primary source to answer your question is the Stromio contract itself. If it does not contain any provisions pertinent to such a situation: It is correct that you are automatically switched to the local Essential Service Provider (Grundversorger, § 36 Ⅱ 1 EnWG). In default of delivery by Stromio, the ESP is in charge of supplying electricity in lieu of Stromio, § 38 Ⅰ 1 EnWG. This is an example of a contract by law. Because the laws govern so, there is now a contract between you and the ESP. You can terminate this contract within two weeks notice, § 20 Ⅰ 1 StromGVV, but you (and only you) still have to meet all your obligations. Recovery against Stromio? §§ 280 Ⅰ, Ⅲ, 283 BGB Obligation, § 280 Ⅰ 1 BGB? → Effective cancellation of contract by Stromio? Provisions in contract granting the right to terminate contract without notice due to economic hardship? ✘ Force majeure, § 314 Ⅰ BGB, ✘ b/c commercial risk burden of any entrepreneur ⇒ Contract between you and Stromio continues to exist, even though Stromio will never again meet its obligations. Breach of duty? § 283 BGB → § 275 Ⅰ BGB: it is impossible to deliver electricity in the past and it does not make sense to deliver electricity today when it was actually needed on December 22, 2021. ✔ No defense? ✔ § 275 Ⅱ BGB ✘ cf. above, § 320 BGB ✘ ⇒ Breach of duty ✔ Responsibility, § 276 Ⅰ 1 BGB? ✔ According to the email, Stromio deliberately stopped delivery. Causal damage? ✔ You would’ve (presumably) paid less if Stromio continued delivery. ⇒ You can charge Stromio the difference you had to pay more. Write them a (registered) letter, enclose the ESP’s bill, refer to your quote you had with Stromio, highlight the difference (“€12.34 due”), indicate your banking account, and set a reasonable deadline. It is unlikely they will fulfill your demands, but still. The ESP is unaware of all of these troubles. They do not have a contract with Stromio. They will not sue them.
No You can outsource if you don't disclose Confidential Information (as defined in the agreement), or if you have the principal's permission to disclose it to the third-party contractor. The clause only applies to confidential information - a subset of all information. I know that independent contractors should have the freedom to complete the work in whatever way they want Not at all. George Clooney, the actor, is an independent contractor - he can't outsource. Of course, this is an example of a personal services contract but, more generally, while the starting position in contracting is that either party may delegate their obligations (although they remain responsible for them) the parties are free to structure their contract however they like. If they want to prohibit outsourcing, they can. If they want to specify that certain personnel must be used (or not used), they can.
is it legally acceptable to state that 7.5 hours is the standard amount No. Because you are a contractor not employee, there is no "standard" to refer to. You are only entitled to what your contract provides for, that is £N per day no matter how much time you worked. That said, if there is no word "overtime" in the contract, you cannot use one to justify how much you charge. You can, though, charge for weekend days (unless the contract explicitly prohibits working on weekends). what should be done about going into the future with this work and asking for a revised contract? 1) Learn the lesson; 2) Make up your mind about what you want to be paid for: hours, days or output; 3) Discuss/negotiate contract terms with your clients.
&quot;Wholly unconnected with your employment&quot; means exactly that. Anything that is not connected to your functions or processes that you use in the course of your employment that your employer would have an interest in either protecting or marketing. Writing a book about software development If you are just a software developer, this would be fine unless you were talking about a process unique to your employer. If you worked in a publishing house that wrote software development books, this would be connected and must be disclosed to your employer. Releasing an open source piece of software not specifically aimed at the industry the company is in Again, this probably fine not to disclose since it would not be something you would develop as part of your employment, or under the umbrella of your company focus market. Release a commercial piece of software not specifically aimed at or competing with the industry the company is in Same as above. Honestly though the best policy is being open. If you come to your company with your idea and tell them that it doesn't have any applications in your industry and would like to develop it in your own time, they would have a much harder leg to stand on in a court case when they finally figured out how to apply it.