Guy B does work under Guy A's contract
April 28, 2009 7:35 AM Subscribe
A contractor I hired set up a number of sub-contracts with individuals- over 500 of them- each of whom received a background check to make sure they were OK to work in a very public program. We discovered that Guy A had a different person (Guy B) fill out all the paperwork to participate. The contract is in Guy B's name, with all his information except the phone number for Guy A. We accepted Guy B into the program, Guy A did the work, and now Guy A wants to be paid. Do we owe him anything?
Guy B would not have passed the background check, which (I think) is why he asked Guy A to fill out the paperwork.
On the one hand, he did do the work. But I don't want to set a precedent that just anyone can come do work so long as someone who is clean fills out the paperwork.
Guy B would not have passed the background check, which (I think) is why he asked Guy A to fill out the paperwork.
On the one hand, he did do the work. But I don't want to set a precedent that just anyone can come do work so long as someone who is clean fills out the paperwork.
To do the background check, did the subcontractors provide a Social Security number? I'm having a hard time parsing the Guy A/B thing, but isn't this fraud? And worse, fraud that makes you possible susceptible to legal problems?
For example, let's give them names: Adam and Bob. Adam wants a job with you, but he's got a criminal record. So, Bob signs the contract and gives the work to Adam, who does the actual work (so, a sub-sub contract). You pay Bob (as your contractor) and Bob pays Adam (as his contractor). That means, you do not pay Adam.
But, if your contract stipulates that the subcontract work cannot be further subcontracted, and that anyone working on the work must pass a background check that shows no criminal records, and Bob promises this, then Bob has broken the agreement. Look to your contract, but you probably do not owe Bob the money, and Bob's obligation with Adam is Bob's problem.
But, let's say you hired Bob to do the work, but with Adam's Social Security number. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say this is illegal and fraudulent. I'd think that you and Bob and Adam might be in trouble over this. In that case, I'd tell Bob he's lucky if the three of you don't get in trouble, and you don't want to continue the fraud. Then, maybe report the whole mess to the appropriate agency.
posted by Houstonian at 7:52 AM on April 28, 2009
For example, let's give them names: Adam and Bob. Adam wants a job with you, but he's got a criminal record. So, Bob signs the contract and gives the work to Adam, who does the actual work (so, a sub-sub contract). You pay Bob (as your contractor) and Bob pays Adam (as his contractor). That means, you do not pay Adam.
But, if your contract stipulates that the subcontract work cannot be further subcontracted, and that anyone working on the work must pass a background check that shows no criminal records, and Bob promises this, then Bob has broken the agreement. Look to your contract, but you probably do not owe Bob the money, and Bob's obligation with Adam is Bob's problem.
But, let's say you hired Bob to do the work, but with Adam's Social Security number. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say this is illegal and fraudulent. I'd think that you and Bob and Adam might be in trouble over this. In that case, I'd tell Bob he's lucky if the three of you don't get in trouble, and you don't want to continue the fraud. Then, maybe report the whole mess to the appropriate agency.
posted by Houstonian at 7:52 AM on April 28, 2009
Why isn't Bob, the one who filled out the paperwork, acting as an intermediary for payment as well as contract? The fact that Adam is approaching you for payment suggests something went wrong with the (very illegal sounding) arrangement and Adam is now stuck.
You should check with a lawyer. Paying Adam despite his fraudulent application could open up a whole can of worms with respect to future contracts with background checks (e.g., "You paid Adam despite his failing a background check, so why not me?").
posted by fatbird at 8:10 AM on April 28, 2009
You should check with a lawyer. Paying Adam despite his fraudulent application could open up a whole can of worms with respect to future contracts with background checks (e.g., "You paid Adam despite his failing a background check, so why not me?").
posted by fatbird at 8:10 AM on April 28, 2009
Best answer: Call a laywer.
Your obligations and the remedies available to you for the actions of A and B are going to be determined by the actual language of the contracts and agreements as well as state law. Nobody here is going to be able to give you any specific recommendations.
posted by toomuchpete at 8:28 AM on April 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Your obligations and the remedies available to you for the actions of A and B are going to be determined by the actual language of the contracts and agreements as well as state law. Nobody here is going to be able to give you any specific recommendations.
posted by toomuchpete at 8:28 AM on April 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
You do not have a contract with Guy A. You did not ask Guy A to do the work. You did not send him a work order. He is on shaky ground at best just based on that. You have no relationship with Guy A. Add to that the fact that he seems to have been trying to skirt the background check, and frankly I think he'd have a lot of chutzpah if he made a fuss. Were there any NDAs or anything like that involved? More cans of worms.
posted by adamrice at 8:32 AM on April 28, 2009
posted by adamrice at 8:32 AM on April 28, 2009
I think you confused Guy A and Guy B in the second paragraph.
posted by Jupiter Jones at 8:36 AM on April 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Jupiter Jones at 8:36 AM on April 28, 2009 [1 favorite]
Guy A did the work, and now Guy A wants to be paid. Do we owe him anything?
No but you do owe Guy B whatever payment was agreed upon. At what point did you find out that the guy who did the work (and who you had contact with) was not the guy who filled in the paperwork? I think that information is important. If you only found out after the work was completed then I think you'd have grounds to take action against both of them for fraud but if you knew from the beginning (or early on in the project) then it just sounds like you're trying to weasel out of paying for the job.
IANAL but IMO, you still have to pay for the work that was done and you should pay it to the person whose details you have on file, which in this case seems to be Guy B. If Guy A wants to get paid then he needs to take it up with Guy B
posted by missmagenta at 8:50 AM on April 28, 2009
No but you do owe Guy B whatever payment was agreed upon. At what point did you find out that the guy who did the work (and who you had contact with) was not the guy who filled in the paperwork? I think that information is important. If you only found out after the work was completed then I think you'd have grounds to take action against both of them for fraud but if you knew from the beginning (or early on in the project) then it just sounds like you're trying to weasel out of paying for the job.
IANAL but IMO, you still have to pay for the work that was done and you should pay it to the person whose details you have on file, which in this case seems to be Guy B. If Guy A wants to get paid then he needs to take it up with Guy B
posted by missmagenta at 8:50 AM on April 28, 2009
IANAL but IMO, you still have to pay for the work that was done and you should pay it to the person whose details you have on file, which in this case seems to be Guy B.
Except Bob effectively subcontracted the work, likely in violation of his subcontractor's agreement. Just like paying Adam directly sets a precedent that your background checks aren't a strict requirement, paying Bob for subcontracting to Adam sets a precedent that your no sub-subcontracting requirement isn't strict.
You really need to talk to a lawyer about this, because you're in a problematic area where the wrong thing might have difficult future consequences. If you want to compensate Adam because the work got done, you can probably find some way to do so without jeopardizing future contracts, and a lawyer can advise you on this as well.
posted by fatbird at 8:57 AM on April 28, 2009
Except Bob effectively subcontracted the work, likely in violation of his subcontractor's agreement. Just like paying Adam directly sets a precedent that your background checks aren't a strict requirement, paying Bob for subcontracting to Adam sets a precedent that your no sub-subcontracting requirement isn't strict.
You really need to talk to a lawyer about this, because you're in a problematic area where the wrong thing might have difficult future consequences. If you want to compensate Adam because the work got done, you can probably find some way to do so without jeopardizing future contracts, and a lawyer can advise you on this as well.
posted by fatbird at 8:57 AM on April 28, 2009
Frankly, it sounds like A & B conspired to commit fraud. Whether you are on the hook to pay anyone might come down to when you became aware of the arrangement between A & B. You may not have a binding contract.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:06 AM on April 28, 2009
posted by Thorzdad at 9:06 AM on April 28, 2009
Response by poster: Crud, I did mix up my Guys between the title and the text. Fitting, I guess.
We did not know of the sub-contract, if you want to call it that, until several weeks after the work was completed.
A & B were in cahoots on this, and we only caught it when asking for a Soc. Sec # of the guy who wanted the check. We saw it did not match the name, and lo and behold "oh, yeah, that, I didn't do it, this other guy did it, I don't want it on my taxes..."
Thanks for the help. It really does boil down the the contract language, but would it have to specifically prohibit sub-contracting? Would it not be implied that the person filling out the form is the one who will do the work?
posted by Patapsco Mike at 10:52 AM on April 28, 2009
We did not know of the sub-contract, if you want to call it that, until several weeks after the work was completed.
A & B were in cahoots on this, and we only caught it when asking for a Soc. Sec # of the guy who wanted the check. We saw it did not match the name, and lo and behold "oh, yeah, that, I didn't do it, this other guy did it, I don't want it on my taxes..."
Thanks for the help. It really does boil down the the contract language, but would it have to specifically prohibit sub-contracting? Would it not be implied that the person filling out the form is the one who will do the work?
posted by Patapsco Mike at 10:52 AM on April 28, 2009
The person whose name appears on the contract is at the very least the one who is responsible for the work, and the one you pay. I've been a subcontractor my entire working life and I never get paid by the end-client. If the guy who ultimately did the work delivered an unacceptable product, you would go to the guy you signed the contract with and say "make this right."
If he doesn't want it on his taxes, that's tough. Regardless of the language in the contract, what these guys did is shady and they're in no position to ask you to make their lives more convenient. The fact that the guy who did the work wouldn't have been approved means that you shouldn't be seen to be doing business with him, so you don't write him a check. If you really, really, really need to keep your hands clean, you don't pay either of them, reject the work, and hire someone else to do it. That could open up another can of worms though.
posted by adamrice at 12:00 PM on April 28, 2009
If he doesn't want it on his taxes, that's tough. Regardless of the language in the contract, what these guys did is shady and they're in no position to ask you to make their lives more convenient. The fact that the guy who did the work wouldn't have been approved means that you shouldn't be seen to be doing business with him, so you don't write him a check. If you really, really, really need to keep your hands clean, you don't pay either of them, reject the work, and hire someone else to do it. That could open up another can of worms though.
posted by adamrice at 12:00 PM on April 28, 2009
If Guy B doesn't want it on his taxes then don't pay him ;) You had a contract with B which I'm guessing did not specifically prohibit subcontracting, something you should probably rectify in future, but in terms of paying A that is irrelevant, you had a contract with B, B had an agreement with A, B owes A, you do not.
Whether you should be paying B or taking him to court is something to discuss with a lawyer once they've gone through the contracts with a fine tooth comb.
posted by missmagenta at 12:30 PM on April 28, 2009
Whether you should be paying B or taking him to court is something to discuss with a lawyer once they've gone through the contracts with a fine tooth comb.
posted by missmagenta at 12:30 PM on April 28, 2009
IANAL but, spit-balling this situation a little, with zero knowledge of the actual contracts or laws of your jurisdiction (or even, in fact, what jurisdiction that is), I can conceive of a situation in which the final guy who did the work has a claim against the guy you contracted to do the work for whatever their agreed-upon amount was, but your company in fact has no obligation to the original party you intended to contract with.
Which is to say that the guy who put his name on the line so his buddy could get some work he wasn't otherwise entitled to could end up holding the bag here, which would be an expensive lesson for him to learn.
The contract/sub-contract issue here is an important one, but no analysis would be complete without taking into account the impact of the original fraud on the agreement. You also wouldn't be able to ignore the concept of unjust enrichment here -- that is, you are unlikely to be allowed to get away with getting this work for free just because two guys conspired to get around your security measures.
If the work is of a nature that you can reject it, you might have that option. If it's something that can't really be un-done, you might not be so lucky. Then again, if regulations of some sort require that the work be done by someone who has passed all of the requisite background checks, the work they did for you could be of no value (i.e., it will have to be redone anyway).
Lots of fact specific issues here, and what might make sense ethically or morally (what many of the above answers speak to) have very little bearing on what your legal options/obligations are. Good luck.
posted by toomuchpete at 1:39 PM on April 28, 2009
Which is to say that the guy who put his name on the line so his buddy could get some work he wasn't otherwise entitled to could end up holding the bag here, which would be an expensive lesson for him to learn.
The contract/sub-contract issue here is an important one, but no analysis would be complete without taking into account the impact of the original fraud on the agreement. You also wouldn't be able to ignore the concept of unjust enrichment here -- that is, you are unlikely to be allowed to get away with getting this work for free just because two guys conspired to get around your security measures.
If the work is of a nature that you can reject it, you might have that option. If it's something that can't really be un-done, you might not be so lucky. Then again, if regulations of some sort require that the work be done by someone who has passed all of the requisite background checks, the work they did for you could be of no value (i.e., it will have to be redone anyway).
Lots of fact specific issues here, and what might make sense ethically or morally (what many of the above answers speak to) have very little bearing on what your legal options/obligations are. Good luck.
posted by toomuchpete at 1:39 PM on April 28, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by LarryC at 7:42 AM on April 28, 2009