What's the difference between a contract of employment, a contract to supply services on demand and a contract for supply?

This is a particularly relevant question for us because we're embroiled in such an argument ourselves right now. In another business we have a contract for supply but the other party seems to think it's a contract for services on demand.

Contracts for Employment are governed by a different law, in the UK at least and almost certainly in Europe. In the USA they're different, but similar. The employer has rights and so does the employee, and those rights pretty much govern the terms of any termination. The employer is required to provide the employee with a statement of terms and those terms have to comply with regulations.

Contracts for services on demand are different. Neither party has particular rights when it comes to termination, apart from the usual confidentiality type issues. Each can pretty much go his own way at the drop of a hat. Contractors get paid more than employees, have less security and more control. An unreasonable boss soon gets told the facts of life. There's less co-operation and more confrontation in these contracts.

A contract for supply is entirely different. The only way out for either party is breach of the contract and the law governing cases goes back centuries. Remedies for breach of contract only come in two guises - damages for breach and specific performance, another way of saying we don't give a crap if you don't like it - do it.

If you're getting into a contract you really should know the difference between these types because that could stop you making a complete fool of yourself, like the jerk off trying to argue with us. It could also make you an awesomely powerful adversary to anybody who doesn't . Good luck to anybody starting their own business. Consider a primer class in laws of contract. It'll pay dividends for the rest of your business life.

Original post at frontofficebox.com