In recent years, more and more companies have chosen to digitize their processes through the development of applications, platforms, or custom technological tools.
However, this trend has brought with it an increasingly common problem: technological projects that, even though they have been developed, do not fulfill their real function in the business.
The conflict does not arise when nothing has been done.
It arises when the result exists… but does not work.
Applications that are not operational, systems with constant failures, or tools that cannot be used in real conditions are situations much more common than they may seem. And, despite this, the provider demands the final payment of the project.
This is where the real legal problem begins.
The most common mistake: claiming total breach
When a company finds itself in this situation, the most common reaction is to adopt a radical position:
“They have not delivered anything”
“This project is a disaster”
However, this approach is usually legally weak.
Why?
Because in most cases:
there has been development
versions have been delivered
there has been continuous interaction between the parties
and there may even have been attempts to publish or launch the product
This makes it very difficult to sustain a total breach of contract before a court.
And when the legal strategy is based on a weak premise, the negotiation is also weakened.
The key issue: what does it really mean to “deliver” software
The critical point in these types of disputes is not whether work has been done or not.
It lies in how the “delivery” of the product is interpreted.
Many providers understand delivery as:
sending a file
providing access
uploading a version to an app store
But from a legal and business perspective, this is not sufficient.
Delivery, in a real sense, implies something much more relevant:
that the software is functional, stable, and usable in the real business environment.
That is, that it fulfills the economic purpose for which it was contracted.
If an application cannot be effectively used, the main obligation of the contract cannot be considered fulfilled.
The correct approach: from legal conflict to functional problem
Instead of focusing the discussion on whether there has been a breach or not, the most effective strategy is to change the axis of the conflict.
It is not about discussing the work performed.
It is about focusing on the result.
The key question is no longer:
“Has the application been developed?”
It becomes:
“Can it actually be used in the business?”
This shift in approach has a direct impact on the negotiation.
Because it introduces an objective, verifiable, and hardly disputable criterion: operability.
The most effective tool: conditioning payment
Once the problem is correctly defined, the strategy becomes much clearer.
In these cases, the most effective path is usually not to file a lawsuit immediately.
It is something much simpler, but extremely powerful:
conditioning payment on real operational delivery.
This implies maintaining a balanced position:
not denying the work performed
not adopting an aggressive or confrontational stance
not closing the door to the relationship
But at the same time, setting a clear line:
final payment only proceeds when the product works.
This approach has a major advantage: it shifts pressure onto the provider without the need for immediate litigation.
How to structure a proper negotiation
An effective negotiation in these situations should be based on four fundamental pillars:
acknowledging that the project has existed and has been worked on
avoiding extreme positions that may weaken credibility
setting the real functionality of the product as the reference
turning the discussion into something objective and verifiable
In practice, this translates into a very clear position:
when the application is operational and validated, payment will be made.
This approach reduces the margin for dispute and focuses the discussion on what truly matters.
Advantages of this strategy
Adopting this approach allows you to:
significantly reduce the risk of litigation
avoid unnecessary escalation of the conflict
force the provider to deliver a real technical solution
protect the client financially
maintain a legally solid position
But above all, it has a key effect:
it shifts the conflict from the legal sphere to the technical and functional one.
And that is where these problems are actually resolved.
Conclusion
In technological projects, the conflict rarely lies in whether work has been done or not.
It lies in whether the result actually serves the business.
And that difference is fundamental.
An effective legal strategy does not consist of exaggerating the problem, but of framing it correctly.
Because when the debate focuses on the real functionality of the product, the negotiation changes completely.
And that is where a well-structured legal strategy makes the difference between a stalled conflict and an effective solution.