>
If the contract is already let, the point is moot - your obligations are spelled out in the contract.
>

That depends on what constitutes the contract. Just because there may be a writing, that does not mean that other oral/written evidence does not apply. In American Jurisprudence, there is such a a thing as the Parole Evidence Rule. The ultimate question you have to ask is whether an intent existed on the part of the parties that the written contract was intended to be a final manifestation of their wishes. Whether it is or is not is a point that can be argued.

The bottom line, regardless of whether there is a written contract, whether the contract is "let" is open to interpretation. The point is never moot. I don't care how iron clad you may think a contract is or its terms,
even a half-way decent attorney can craft an argument for either side...