[harshreality]

Exactly. Let's see the formal contract. The deliverables, the payment schedule, and any emails indicating DC agreement to subsequent requests for changes of terms.

The way EE phrases it, they were paid much less than they were owed, but owed according to what? Their internal accounting, or what they'd mutually agreed on with DC? Only the latter matters.

Emails saying "it's going to cost $X more", if any of EE's emails rose to that level of clarity and directness, are legally useless and meaningless without clear assent from DC.

[iwontberude]

If they said it will cost more and DC took delivery, that is sufficient. There is such a thing as unjust enrichment and DEFCON is responsible for paying for the goods and services they receive. You simply cannot stiff someone because the original agreement didn’t include the extra work. As with almost any project, it’s inevitable DEFCON wanted changes and those could make the original contract obsolete.