ok, that was my thought also. I don't know if I can leave a bonus for asking a further but related question and will do if possible.
Could it be a good argument that, the second contract signed under duress or undue influence, as without signing it the client would not have provided the information required to allow the contractor to fulfill his obligations under the first contract (frustrating it perhaps)?
In simpler terms, the client would not give me the information I needed to complete the work set out in the contract for work unless I signed the contract that would prorogate the jurisdcition of the Scottish Courts, related to clauses that were very similar in effect.
The timeline is as follows:
1 - Discussions for the work and agreeing rates.
2 - Client accepted the work and agreed to the contract of work by paying a deposit.
3 - The client then stating via email words to the effect of "sign the attached agreement and I will send over the information"
However, this information was required in order to complete the work prescribed in the first contract (which was already signed). Without the information, I would not have been able to fulfil my obligations in the first contract, causing me to breach that first contract.
Therefore, if I did not sign the second contract, I would have certainly breached the first contract.
Sorry point 2 should rad. Client accepted the rates and agreed to the contract of work by paying a deposit.