Hello, my name is XXXXX XXXXX it is my pleasure to assist you with your question today.please leave it with me. I am in a tribunal today and will get back this afternoon if that is ok with you
Yes, there was a contract along the lines of the commercial terms I described above. Basically they have billed £50k, which includes £10k for the hire that didn't work out. They have agreed to replace that hire, if we pay the £10k. We have lost faith in their ability to provide that replacement or the second hire still due.
Payments are due:
20k on acceptance of proposal
20k on presentation of shortlist (there is no definition of shortlist)
20k on engagement of the applicant.
The contract says nothing about people who refuse or are unsuitable, save to allow for the replacement of a hired candidate that leaves within 3 months.
We have a basic issue with the quality of candidates that have been suggested and also, based partly on their own admissions, their ability now to provide acceptable candidates in a reasonable timeframe.
We don't believe that we have received value for the £40k already paid and they are 'demanding' the additional £10k. We would (reluctantly) probably settle at the £40k and both parties walk away, but, at least as a negotiating stance, I would like to push back and give them some concern about whether a court would even give them credit for the £40k.
We could reasonably dispute something between £20-30k, so would be looking to recover £10-20k of what paid.
Do you think a court would be reasonably sympathetic? After all, we have paid £40k for no return and also suggested a more than reasonable settlement.