I am writing up a contract as a self-employed freelancer and I have a question about contract termination and the notice period. Lets say I have a 14 day notice period clause in my contract and either me or the client decide to terminate the contract. Am I right to assume that once the notice has been issued to the other party, me and the client still work on the project for 14 days until the notice period expires and that the client is required to pay for the work that has been done in those 14 days (assuming that I have this clause defined in my contact)?
2 Answers
Am I right to assume that once the notice has been issued to the other party, me and the client still work on the project for 14 days until the notice period expires and that the client is required to pay for the work that has been done in those 14 days
In the absence of any other wording to the contrary, a contract continues as normal up until the day of termination. The fact that a party has given notice to terminate merely establishes the termination date, unless the notice clause says something different.
Note that there is nothing to stop you drafting a clause which explicitly states this. Indeed, it is often useful to explicitly state things which are already implied as it helps to avoid any dispute from arising in the first place.
Am I right to assume that once the notice has been issued to the other party, me and the client still work on the project for 14 days until the notice period expires and that the client is required to pay for the work that has been done in those 14 days (assuming that I have this clause defined in my contact)?
Yes, and beware that a clause solely to that particular effect might be redundant enough to do (to you, the draftsman) more harm than good. Generally speaking, a notice of termination does not affect the contractual rights and obligations during that period. Your description has no indication that any exceptional circumstances are applicable here.
A clause that reinforces the rights and obligations during the notice period would be redundant because (1) it would render the concept of "notice period" meaningless, and (2) the notion that only one party will benefit during the notice period contravenes the tenet that a contract is an exchange of considerations.
The presence of a clause of that sort might even support an expectation that other issues which are less obvious also be re-affirmed so as to preclude an alternative interpretation. In other words, the counterparty could allege: "The draftsman could have spelled out his intent on xyz just like he did on the more obvious issue about compensation during the notice period, yet he failed to do so. Therefore, as the non-draftsman, I am entitled to prevail on grounds of contra proferentem".
