>John, I though you were in law school. Isn't the first thing a lawyer learns, that a contract isn't worth the paper it is written?
>

Yes, I am in law school. As for a contract not being worth the paper it is written on, that depends (typcial lawyer response..< bg >..). There is something called the Parole Evidence Rule. It basically breaks down this way...

Let's say you and I had a written agreement and subsequent to that agreement, you thought that a term was materially different than the writing. Your assertions contradict the writing, that is signed by both of us. Because it directly conflicts with a written term that was agreed upon, I would assert the Parole Evidence Rule as a defense. Your side however, would counter that in reality, you are not contradicting a term, rather, you are merely explaining and clarifying the term. If this is the case, you could stand a shot at getting your evidence admitted. Mind you, this does not mean you have won. All it means is that your interpretation of what the agreement is can be admitted as evidence.

Ultimately, it boils down to who can make the better argument to the judge. Jurys don't decide these things because whether the issue gets admitted is a matter of law, not fact. Once it is admitted as evidence, only then does it become a matter of fact for the trier of fact to consider.

Other theories would include promissory estoppel and quasi-contract.


>The situation will get better because I will not allow it to continue. I would rather eat the cost of development so far and bring a crew of 4 or 5 developers on site and get the app redone from scratch in about 14 months.
<

Sounds like you are in a position of authority and are taking a proactive stance here!

Best of luck!