|
DEFCON isn't the entity doing the work. It's up to EE to get DC's clear agreement on changes of terms. Otherwise, EE must either: a) acknowledge that they can't fulfill the contract under the existing terms, and follow the contract's termination procedures b) keep working to try to complete the project, because the agreed upon payment is better, even considering the extra work, than whatever contract termination involved When DC told EE to stop work, they did so rather than say "everything's fine, we're continuing as agreed"? That means they knew they couldn't deliver as contracted, or didn't want to because every day they kept working would lose them more money even if they fulfilled the contract. This is why they should've had a reasonable contract that didn't require heroics in order to break even. Because, when things started to go bad, they needed a fallback besides taking a big loss for partial work, and taking a bigger loss for complete work. Or alternatively, they could've reasonably contracted to do something nearly impossible, if they were okay with failing and getting nothing, at least for the r&d portion, turning it into an RP2350 learning opportunity. (Presumably, if they made it to production, the contract easily covered production costs.) |