anonymousx1234x
Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington, D.C.
I've entered the Washington Post's "America's Next Great Pundit" contest. These are the rules.
views.washingtonpost.com/pundits2010/rules.html
Since the prize is only worth $3,250, subject to a self-employment tax, I don't feel the need of actually hiring a lawyer to answer these questions.
These rules are long and tedious. My mind goes numb reading it. Maybe you guys can answer some questions I have.
1. I understand that, in the event that I win, they don't have to use my submissions. Is there anything in the contract that might exempt them from paying me? If so, where?
2. If I become a finalist, will I have to fund my own trip to Washington?
3. It says that I would be an independent contractor. However, they seem to exercise a good deal of control over the relationship. Control is, typically, the biggest factor in determining whether work is performed as an employee or an independent contractor. Which would hold, in this case? The standard form contract, or the common law principle? Even if I normally agree to be an independent contractor, standard form contracts are typically highly scrutinized for unconscionably, are they not? Shouldn't that throw a monkey wrench into that equation?
I'll have more questions in the event that I think of them.
I've entered the Washington Post's "America's Next Great Pundit" contest. These are the rules.
views.washingtonpost.com/pundits2010/rules.html
Since the prize is only worth $3,250, subject to a self-employment tax, I don't feel the need of actually hiring a lawyer to answer these questions.
These rules are long and tedious. My mind goes numb reading it. Maybe you guys can answer some questions I have.
1. I understand that, in the event that I win, they don't have to use my submissions. Is there anything in the contract that might exempt them from paying me? If so, where?
2. If I become a finalist, will I have to fund my own trip to Washington?
3. It says that I would be an independent contractor. However, they seem to exercise a good deal of control over the relationship. Control is, typically, the biggest factor in determining whether work is performed as an employee or an independent contractor. Which would hold, in this case? The standard form contract, or the common law principle? Even if I normally agree to be an independent contractor, standard form contracts are typically highly scrutinized for unconscionably, are they not? Shouldn't that throw a monkey wrench into that equation?
I'll have more questions in the event that I think of them.