Moving Yards......WWD

Well an amicable agreement was reached and tomorrow it wont be an issue as I will be gone. And I will be a litte wiser having come here to have a discussion about it so will know better I future.
 
It doesnt apply to contracts I deal with at work for provision of services and many conversations with Trading Standards have always resulted in no contract and no viable means of our company proving the client was advised of a notice period means client released from contract without notice period being required. Why are livery yards different?
 
If you pay monthly you need to giv e amonths notice. funny you decided to move just after you'd paid one months livery..
 
amymay said:
Once again - there is a contract.
Click to expand...
But surely for there to be a verbal contract in place, there actually has to have been some sort of discussion. So the YO lays out rules (such as one months notice etc), livery agrees to them, contract is in place. But I don't understand how there can be a verbal contract in place if no discussion of this nature has taken place. Or maybe I'm just being slow :o
 
HashRouge said:
But surely for there to be a verbal contract in place, there actually has to have been some sort of discussion. So the YO lays out rules (such as one months notice etc), livery agrees to them, contract is in place. But I don't understand how there can be a verbal contract in place if no discussion of this nature has taken place. Or maybe I'm just being slow :o
Click to expand...

Apparently its implied through payment, never heard or seen this in action before but apparently its one of those unwritten rules that I have been unable to find online or anywhere even when looking through contract law as contract law covers verbal and written but for verbal it has to be proven that both sides stated terms and that a discussion had to take place according to what im reading. With written its in black and white. A lega battle would be hard to prove in this case with no paper trail, bank transfers or receipts. One word against another.
 
HashRouge said:
But surely for there to be a verbal contract in place, there actually has to have been some sort of discussion. So the YO lays out rules (such as one months notice etc), livery agrees to them, contract is in place. But I don't understand how there can be a verbal contract in place if no discussion of this nature has taken place. Or maybe I'm just being slow :o
Click to expand...

I think people are saying the contract is implied because of the monthly payment of the livery .
So if say it went to court a court would say you paid monthly so a months notice must be given.
There will be case law on this for those sad enough to search.
 
If you are unsure of the notice period you should ask, not assume and blame the YO because they never told you! If you aren't aware of the general way things are done you should ask - one of the things to ask when you move onto a livery yard perhaps? Don't wait to be told, ask!
 
Is everyone who is saying the 'monthly payment means a month's notice' rule applies sure this applies to non-residential property? I know it applies in tenancy law (ie for humans), but that is a statutory provision relating to periodic tenancies. It doesn't necessarily apply to any contracts relating to any other rentals.
I'm not saying it doesn't either: I can' t remember tbh. Happy to be pointed in the right direction.
The only verbal contract here is for £x for renting Y. Nothing about notice.
 
If you run a business terms & conditions should be made clear prior to business commencing & I'm not sure why livery yards should be any different? Probably because it's not a registered business & therefore there aren't any T&Cs hence misunderstandings when someone wants to terminate arrangement. IMO a contract protects YO & liveries.
 
HashRouge said:
But surely for there to be a verbal contract in place, there actually has to have been some sort of discussion. So the YO lays out rules (such as one months notice etc), livery agrees to them, contract is in place. But I don't understand how there can be a verbal contract in place if no discussion of this nature has taken place. Or maybe I'm just being slow :o
Click to expand...

Basically, in this case there is a contract between the parties but the terms of that contract are not clear. In the event of a dispute that ended up in court, the court can imply certain terms to make the contract make sense so that it can then be enforced. If payments are made monthly, it is reasonable to imply a months notice period.

(For land law, it's a periodic tenancy under common law.)

But it's all a bit irrelevant here as OP and YO came to an amicable settlement.
 
HashRouge said:
But surely for there to be a verbal contract in place, there actually has to have been some sort of discussion. So the YO lays out rules (such as one months notice etc), livery agrees to them, contract is in place. But I don't understand how there can be a verbal contract in place if no discussion of this nature has taken place. Or maybe I'm just being slow :o
Click to expand...

No, you're right.
There is a contract, but if notice was never discussed and this is the first time it's come up, then it's not part of any verbal contract, or a contract by virtue of practice ie even if it's not discussed, if one party always pays monthly, then the contract becomes that: monthly payments.
Problem of verbal contracts is normally evidence: if OP were to claim that YO had said there is no need for notice, or YO claims two months' notice was agreed...no evidence either way, if it was purely verbal.
 
teacups said:
No, you're right.
There is a contract, but if notice was never discussed and this is the first time it's come up, then it's not part of any verbal contract, or a contract by virtue of practice ie even if it's not discussed, if one party always pays monthly, then the contract becomes that: monthly payments.
Problem of verbal contracts is normally evidence: if OP were to claim that YO had said there is no need for notice, or YO claims two months' notice was agreed...no evidence either way, if it was purely verbal.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point :)
 
Tiffany said:
If you run a business terms & conditions should be made clear prior to business commencing & I'm not sure why livery yards should be any different? Probably because it's not a registered business & therefore there aren't any T&Cs hence misunderstandings when someone wants to terminate arrangement. IMO a contract protects YO & liveries.
Click to expand...

I agree.
If OP were to go without paying a penny, I doubt the YO would pursue it. The potential notice money is probably nothing compared to the tax YO would be liable to pay on all the undeclared cash-in-hand income.
And IMO the onus is on the YO to set out clear terms regarding notice periods, in any case.
 
Last edited:
You could just as easily state that YO shouldnt just assume that that potential clients will know that 30 days notic is required and should ensure they tell people. They shouldnt assume and then blsme the client for not asking.
 
Isn't all this talk of how verbal contracts are held in law somewhat academic considering YO is trying to avoid HMRC :rolleyes: :o

OP IMHO a month's notice would be given in a perfect world. 5 days notice is a bit too short. Given that YO flipped her lid and threatened to lock down your horse I think your compromise of 2 weeks pay is the ideal solution, and I'm glad that YO accepted it and all is well again.

Good luck with the move tomorrow :)
 
SpanishNeddy said:
Well not if she did not know/agree it verbally in the first place there isn't ;)

But yes - verbal contracts do hold same weight as written contracts....providing you did know!
Click to expand...
Of course she knew, she's been paying her livery bill on the 27th of the month all this time. The proper course of action would have been to say, 'I have found a space nearer to home, so will be leaving at the end of this week but of course will pay up to 27th May, I hope you mange to fill the space before then.' I'm not surprised YO was annoyed although she was OTT.
 
Sometimes livery yards owners don't want to enforce a months' notice because the YO considers it better that the client doesn't hang about any longer than necessary!! Perhaps if the YO is reading this, they should consider this as an option. I think I would.

Oh by the way, just because the OP states that the YO is doing everything 'cash in hand', doesn't mean that the YO doesn't fill in a self assessed tax return. Gossip like this can be dangerous. And, whether or not the YO has a contract has nothing to do with HMRC.
 
Last edited:
Tonks said:
Oh by the way, just because the OP states that the YO is doing everything 'cash in hand', doesn't mean that the YO doesn't fill in a self assessed tax return. Gossip like this can be dangerous. And, whether or not the YO has a contract has nothing to do with HMRC.
Click to expand...

Quite
 
I could see your point if I had named the yard but I have not. And I wil point out again that I only mentioned the cash in hand thing to explain why she had no contract in place. I am aware that this has no bearing on notice issues and have stated so several times now.
 
Pearlasinger just because I paid my livery on 27th of each month does not mean I knew she wanted a months notice. I do not possess psychic powers and have paid monthly livery previously where no notice was required.
 
Hevs said:
Pearlasinger just because I paid my livery on 27th of each month does not mean I knew she wanted a months notice. I do not possess psychic powers and have paid monthly livery previously where no notice was required.
Click to expand...


I don't know why you are getting so stroppy. I is standard practice for the notice period to be the same as the payment period. Just the same with work. If you are paid weekly you only have to give a weeks notice to quit. Paid monthly have to give a months notice.
 
You got stroppy from that? lol whatever. Getting fed up repeating myself. It is not common knowledge as I have had yards ask for notice and yards not expect notice. And in work I give notice in accordance to my contract so not comparable as I had no contract and was not verbally told was required to give it.
 
Lol I don't think anyone on this thread has gotten stroppy despite several people doing their usual baiting ;) it's been a pretty eye opening thread all round involving the implied and the known.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top