Labor Contract CancellationSubcontractor on the Vang Vieng build · payment dispute · resolution paths.

A subcontract is in dispute on the active build.

Headline numbers — the situation in one screen.

On April 7, 2026, the labor-payment relationship with Jacam Lao Consultant Group Co., Ltd. — the subcontractor managing labor on the Vang Vieng build for Violaine & Ben Cleyet-Marrel — escalated into open dispute. Modern Lao Homes had advanced funds intended for worker payment via the subcontractor; Win (Jacam's principal) cites disputed deductions as reason for partial payment; workers allege non-receipt. The dispute is unfolding on the only active revenue project, where the foundation was poured March 31, 2026 and the construction is contractually obligated to continue.

This brief documents the relationship from first contact through current state, identifies the workers and amounts in play, sets out the legal exposure under Lao labor and contract law, and proposes three resolution paths in priority order.

Jacam Lao Consultant Group Co., Ltd.

Identity and license documentation already on file with Modern Lao Homes.

Jacam Lao Consultant Group Co., Ltd. was introduced to Modern Lao Homes via WhatsApp in November 2025. The company name was confirmed by Win on February 12, 2026 ("Good I am sending you company name and address — Jacam Lao Consultant Group Co., Ltd"), the same date the formal subcontract for the Vang Vieng (Violaine/Ben) build was signed. The company license document was sent to MLH via WhatsApp on January 30, 2026, captioned simply "Jacam Lao Company", and is on file as Jacam Lao Company (1).pdf in the Drive Gary Data folder.

Operating model: Jacam acts as a labor-management subcontractor, recruiting and supervising workers on a defined 15-day payment cycle. Workers are paid through Jacam, not directly by MLH. MLH's contractual relationship is with Jacam (the subcontractor), and Jacam's relationship is with the workers. This creates the structural fault-line at the heart of the current dispute — when MLH advances worker-payment funds to Jacam, the workers' actual receipt depends on Jacam passing those funds through.

From introduction to dispute escalation.

Every material event in the WhatsApp record. Each entry sourced to a specific message.

Three named individuals. Plus unnamed others.

Workers identified by name in the WhatsApp record. The dispute centers on whether they have been paid.

Action prerequisite: before any settlement path is chosen, the actual list of workers, the specific amounts each was meant to receive, and what each has actually received must be verified directly — not via Jacam — to avoid being misled by either party. Recommended: request the village-office worker registration list (filed via ກນ 5591.pdf February 20) which is the formal record of all workers on site.

Three layers of risk.

What MLH is exposed to legally if the dispute compounds. Lao counsel input required on each.

The primary Lao legal questions to confirm with counsel:

• Q1 Under Lao law, when a subcontractor fails to pass through worker wages despite receiving funds from the principal contractor, does the principal contractor (MLH) bear residual statutory liability to the workers?
• Q2 Is the Jacam subcontract dated February 12, 2026 specific enough on payment-pass-through obligations to support a clear breach claim against Jacam?
• Q3 Does the village-office worker registration (ກນ 5591.pdf, filed Feb 20 2026) create direct-employer characterisation of MLH that would alter the liability picture?
• Q4 If MLH replaces Jacam mid-build with a different labor subcontractor, what's the legal cure-period requirement before formal substitution? Does termination-for-cause language exist in the Feb 12 subcontract?
• Q5 Mr. Chat's worker-debt to Jacam (passport, visa, money) — is this a recognised lawful arrangement under Lao labor law, or is it an indenture-style arrangement carrying its own exposure?
• Q6 Does paying workers directly (bypassing Jacam) constitute waiver / interference with the subcontract — or is it permitted as cover-and-charge-back to protect the principal's continuity interest?

Settlement, formal demand, or replacement.

Three options ranked. The recommended path preserves the active build while addressing the unpaid-worker question directly.

Recommendation: Path A. Cover-and-charge-back is the lowest-friction path that addresses the worker-payment question (the legal exposure layer that compounds fastest) while preserving Vang Vieng build continuity. Path B is a contingency if Path A's verification step reveals Jacam materially lied about amounts. Path C is reserved for repeat-incident scenarios.

What needs to happen this week.

Sequenced steps if Path A is approved.

1. 1 Verify each worker's actual unpaid amount directly. Visit Vang Vieng site or call workers individually. Cross-reference with the village-office worker registration (ກນ 5591.pdf) to ensure the full list is captured.
2. 2 Compile the evidence file. Save the WhatsApp thread (367 messages), the Jan 30 license document, the Feb 12 subcontract, the Feb 20 ກນ 5591.pdf, and the April 7-13 dispute exchange — into a single dispute folder for counsel.
3. 3 Brief Lao counsel on Q1–Q6. 30-60 minute call to confirm the cover-and-charge-back path is permitted under the subcontract and Lao labor law. Get written confirmation.
4. 4 Pay workers directly, signed receipts in hand. One-shot payment to clear the $1,500 exposure and preserve labor on site.
5. 5 Issue written charge-back notice to Jacam. Document the amount paid directly, cite the subcontract clause being relied on, confirm deduction will apply to next progress milestone payment.
6. 6 Decide on Jacam relationship going forward. Repair (continue with stricter payment-pass-through reporting) or wind-down (complete Vang Vieng then no further work). Decision can wait 1-2 weeks while Path A executes.
7. 7 Strengthen subcontract template. Going forward, every subcontract MLH issues should include (a) explicit worker-payment-pass-through clause, (b) right of MLH to pay workers directly with charge-back, (c) signed receipt requirement on each payment, (d) audit right on subcontractor's worker-payment ledger. This goes into the standard template.

This brief sits within a larger partnership review.

For context, full company posture, capital request, and operational plan — read alongside.

This Jacam brief is intentionally scoped to a single matter so it can be circulated to counsel and the active-project owners (Mr. Snider, Sam) without exposing the full company posture each time. The companion documents above provide context if needed.

Source documentation

Every claim in this brief traces to a file in our records.