SloJoCro said:

It's not a “breach” for him to demand payment upfront though.

Refusing to work is a clear breach, though. You can't apply for a job at - for example - a restaurant and then demand to be paid for two months upfront. It doesn't matter whether it's in the contract or not because the law automatically is part of the contract.

SloJoCro said:

If you're going to do a fixed-price agreement like this, you need to be careful not just about when the payment is due but also what he actually needs to do to trigger the obligation. You don't want to be stuck paying him if he delivers complete crap. It seems like you used an agreement template that wasn't suited for fixed-price.

The contract does specify the scope of the work, i.e. which models need to be made.

Beosar said:
Refusing to work is a clear breach, though. You can't apply for a job at - for example - a restaurant and then demand to be paid for two months upfront. It doesn't matter whether it's in the contract or not because the law automatically is part of the contract.

He's an independent contractor, not an employee. It's not technically a breach until him refusing to work makes him fail to deliver on time. But honestly: whether it's a breach or not is not what you want to rely on.

SloJoCro said:

It's not technically a breach until him refusing to work makes him fail to deliver on time.

I don't think I have to wait that long if he outright refuses to work at all.

SloJoCro said:

But honestly: whether it's a breach or not is not what you want to rely on.

No, it is. Otherwise, I may have to pay him for the jobs he missed due to having a contract with me. That's stated in the law.

Tom Sloper said:
Beosar said: I am still obligated to work with him and pay him if he decided to work.

no you are not.

US law or no, here in the US, we have something called “at will employment", which effectively means each party can terminate a contract for any reason at any time. it's a California based condition.

I've had people terminate our working relationship with a single email saying so.

What your thinking of is employment law in the 90s.:

You are not a big corporation that must honor terms of guaranteed employment based on the old laws stipulated above for “employees” .

Sounds like he is not even a contractor, but is a freelancer, thus you can terminate as you wish.

However, terms of the contract must be clear which it sounds like were not.

Payment terms and conditions should be stipulated and governance jurisdictions should be clear in the contract.

As well as terms for dispute.

Sounds like most of this was not clear.

As for what you should do?

1. Go to the platform where you found this person, and leave a review about his conduct
2. Find a lawyer familiar with employment law in your location as well as his
3. Do not pay anyone until this is resolved
4. Get said lawyer to review your contract

GeneralJist said:
Sounds like he is not even a contractor, but is a freelancer

There's a difference?

Tom Sloper said:

GeneralJist said:
Sounds like he is not even a contractor, but is a freelancer

There's a difference?

yes,

According to the Google God:

“Freelancers work on their own terms, creating their schedules and finding clients. Contractors have fixed-term contracts through their employer or a third-party agency.”

Despite this, I think they are both 1099 ed.

The IRS might have additional granular views on the subject as well.

At the most basic, Contractors tend to have one single “client” and they work for longer terms, while freelancers have multiple clients and are brought in to do a specific job.

oh! The IRS views freelancers as "self employed" , that is the main difference.

oh wait!!!

Did the OP and the person involved look at the contract 1st, and tried to change the terms before signing? or was this after?

I've had a few savvy people review the contract I have and negotiate adding or removing clauses. This is reasonable.

GeneralJist said:
According to the Google God: “Freelancers work on their own terms, creating their schedules and finding clients. Contractors have fixed-term contracts through their employer or a third-party agency.”

Once a freelancer has a contract, he's a contractor. Once his contract is done, he's back to being a freelancer again.

Tom Sloper said:

GeneralJist said:
According to the Google God: “Freelancers work on their own terms, creating their schedules and finding clients. Contractors have fixed-term contracts through their employer or a third-party agency.”

Once a freelancer has a contract, he's a contractor. Once his contract is done, he's back to being a freelancer again.

The Google God agrees, so it looks like this checks out.

Beosar said:
No, it is. Otherwise, I may have to pay him for the jobs he missed due to having a contract with me. That's stated in the law.

What?

Really?

That doesn't sound right….

If someone has a contract and is missing out on other opportunities, normally that is the responsibility of the individual working, not the employer.

If US law worked that way, countless issues and litigation would be all over the place.

It's a judgment call for the worker, and you should not need to be responsible for his actions or inactions.

As long as there is no “noncompete” in the contract, it's his responsibility not yours/