You all seem to be overlooking a very simple equitable principal...unjust enrichment. If the client ordered work under circumstances in which it knew or should have known that David expected to be compensated...the client is liable. It is an equitable remedy. The defense that they would raise would most likely be that the plaintiff (David) has come into equity with soiled hands. Whose mistake it was, and who is liable for it remains to the trier of fact. People....let's get some balls, and fight for what is right rather than having terms dictated to us by a client. 

 

to post a reply: login - or - register