QLD Contract Law - How to Afford Flexibility to Organisation and Individuals?

[Bencap]

Hello

I am seeking assistance in locating case law or statutes relating to the following issues:

The organisation receives funding from the State government in an individuals with a disabilities name (the organisation having already entered a service agreement with the individuals). The funding is used by the organisation to purchase services from third parties (suppliers). The individuals have the right to choose the suppliers they want to engage. The organisation will not enter into an agreement with some of the suppliers due to any number of factors, but mostly regarding appropriateness of the supplier's insurance and potential contributory damages in the event of an incident.

We've discussed invoices being sent by the supplier to the individual then being sent to the organisation with a request to pay on their behalf. Compounding any sort of solution is the organisation's charitable status for GST and whether this still applies when not having a direct relationship with the supplier.

Under Contract Law, how can I afford maximum flexibility/simplicity to individuals and protection to the organisation?

Happy to provide additional information on request.

Thanks.

 

[Sophea]

I would agree that any contract between the service provider would have to be with the individual for the purposes of liability. The individual can sue the service provider on the basis of contract or duty of care, but if the organisation is in the contract with the service provider it may necessarily be drawn into litigation as the middleman if a contractual cause of action is required if no duty of care arises.

Not sure about the GST implications, but I imagine if organisation is not in contractual relationship with service providers then its a situation where individuals make a claim through the org to get refunded for their payment to service providers - although in reality the org. would pay them direct, not the individual is that correct?

 

[Bencap]

I would agree that any contract between the service provider would have to be with the individual for the purposes of liability. The individual can sue the service provider on the basis of contract or duty of care, but if the organisation is in the contract with the service provider it may necessarily be drawn into litigation as the middleman if a contractual cause of action is required if no duty of care arises. Not sure about the GST implications, but I imagine if organisation is not in contractual relationship with service providers then its a situation where individuals make a claim through the org to get refunded for their payment to service providers - although in reality the org. would pay them direct, not the individual is that correct?

Thanks Sophea. More often than not, the organisation would pay the supplier directly at the individual's direction. The primary reason being that the costs are often too high for the individual to pay in the first place.

 

[Rod]

The organisation will not enter into an agreement with some of the suppliers due to any number of factors, but mostly regarding appropriateness of the supplier's insurance and potential contributory damages in the event of an incident.

Taking on this role may introduce an element of risk with your individuals. You may be seen as providing a 'vetting' service and therefore if your vetting service increases a risk or fails to see a risk, you may be deemed liable. You would need a waiver of liability agreement, with the individuals. Who pays the invoice is not particularly relevant (individual or you), but names on the invoice do matter.

I understand you are concerned about your individuals but why take on this role at all?

The ATO would be the ones best able to answer GST questions for charities.

As a charity receiving Government funding, have you asked the QLD government solicitor for advice?