Legally, maybe. In practice, when I was freelancing, I don’t think any of my clients would have been okay with me subcontracting the work. Amongst other reasons, I think most clients wouldn’t be happy with the idea that they could have paid someone else less to do the same work. (And yes, I understand that there’s a management aspect to subcontracting that may justify the difference, but most clients wouldn’t see it that way if they were expecting you to do the work by yourself.)
I don’t feel sympathy for that, because to me the very aspect of contracting is that you should be able to subcontract out the work. If they wanted me specifically to do the work, then they should have taken the time and effort and paid the taxes to hire me as a W2 employee. You can’t have it both ways.
You could absolutely have it both ways if both parties agree to those terms though. If the agreement is for the work to be performed by a specific person, either in word or intent, then it could be breach of contract.
Absolutely! My point is that if you are making an agreement for a specific person to perform the work instead of worrying about the outcome itself, perhaps you are really seeking employment instead of a contractual agreement.
This whole thread got super litigious around my comment that there is a defendable reality where people subcontract what you contracted them to do. It all depends on the contract wording.
Good counter example to me defending be able to subcontract would be performance agreements (e.g. I pay Foo Fighters $1m for a concert they can't send Weird Al in their place).
