Quoted from Rarehero:
I got this email from Jaap this morning:
ARA is not telling the truth. They don’t charge us the agreed price.
In May 2015 we agreed price A. In June 2016 ARA wanted much more money per TBL: A plus €1.000+. DP agreed with this price but only under the condition that ARA would deliver 300 TBLs plus 50 units of our 2nd title before the 31st of December 2016. A few months later (October 2016) we found out that ARA didn’t order parts for the production of the 50 units of our 2nd title. We confronted ARA with this and told them the deal of June is of because they don’t deliver in accordance with the clear condition (the delivery of 300 TBLs plus 50 units of our 2nd title before the 31st of December 2016).
ARA insists on charging us A plus €1.000+. They didn’t produce a single unit of our 2nd title.
For us this is unacceptable as you probably will understand. The agreed price is price A and not A plus €1.000+.
Please feel free to share this with the pinball community.
So, they're sticking to their "ARA blew it" story. I just hope they had this conditional contract in writing.If we are to believe this...I think an interesting tidbit is the mention of the 2nd title. If they indeed finished designing a 2nd title and wanted it built by Dec. 2016, that means DP wasn't planning on being one-and-done, and that maybe gives me a bit more confidence that they'll work this all out...as they've got another game in the can that should have been ready to go.
I don't buy their story verbatim..
1) A common sense contract would have resolutions written in for non-performance / aka missing a deadline... not "you failed, price increase off the table" and the deadlock they are in now. No way ARA would agree to a contract that simply says "perform, or you get zero". A new agreement would replace the prior agreement, not some 'fallback'.
2) This would have meant ARA agreeing to a production of 350 games in 6 months.. or > 13 games a week. They've never been anywhere near that speed.. and that's been obvious since day 1.. not some discovery about no parts for game 2 three months later
Again the truth is probably somewhere in the middle... the terms on what the two parties can change things on... and what deal is in effect when those terms are disputed. And then DP withholding payment as a bargaining chip...