-1

I work as a subcontractor for a contractor. My contract is up for renewal. There is a term I would like to change. The term states that me getting paid is contingent on him getting paid. I don't think this is fair because hypothetically he could do something negligent and not care about getting paid, then he's off the hook for paying me. (I asked the question on the Law version of the site)

How is this typically handled? I can see why he would want to get paid first before paying me. I was thinking our contract would state "Contractor will invoice client at least once a month, and upon receiving pay will pay subcontractor within 30 days".

3

I had a client try this once and I simply explained to them that they need to pay me for work performed whether or not their client pays them for said work. Their ability to collect payment should have no bearing on their obligation to pay me.

That being said, you can ask them to remove that clause from the contract and simply state your payment terms (Net 15, Net 30, etc.), but at the end of the day you have no means to enforce this. You could try to sue them for breach of contract, or you could try to sue them for non-payment, but at the end of the day it's going to be a hassle for you.

I'm afraid in this situation there isn't much you can do to affect real change, other than to stop working for them if they continue the existing practice.

| improve this answer | |
  • There is one thing he can do to protect himself against a client with unsure funding - get paid upfront, or at least in much smaller than monthly increments. – Tymoteusz Paul Jun 30 at 22:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .