If I'm expected to pay upfront, I expect to get something in return, not only see something. Especially since I would want to see the code in order to judge code quality. If I decide at any given point that I am not satisfied or want to discontinue the project, I have the code that has been produced until that time, and the coder has the money for what he coded until that moment.

I had seen some of the code, but not the whole package. Given 1 or 2 key files as "examples" of what was going into the whole package. Nothing that could be used by it's self mind you, but enough to see that things were being worked on and that the code was sound.

The developers stance was he was protecting himself from me just taking the work and running. My stance for paying him in installments was along the same lines.

To everything there is 2 sides of a coin. At the time I understood where it seemed he was coming from.

I know it kinda makes me sound like a smartass, and I apologize for it, but how would that arrangement protect anyone but the coder? You pay installments up front and get nothing (substanial) in return. How would it be against the interest of the coder if you got your hands on the unfinished versions? He coded them so far, and you pay him for the work he has done so far. If you take that code, you have already payed for it. He has the money, you have the code. In your model, he has the money, and you have nothing.

Because the agreed upon price was greater.

Which comes first the chicken or the egg.... The product or the payment.

From his arguement, I can see someone being worried if they gave the customer X package & not getting paid for it. Just as I can see it from where I stand now, paying and not getting X package.

Somewhere, someone has to go first. In either case that individual runs the risk of being scammed.

I'm sorry to hear you got burned.

That principle might hold for a tiny project, but not for $3,500, no way should you ever have agreed to that. :(

The project should have agreed milestones, each representing working features, and payments made and code exchanged for each installment. Indeed, for a project that size I would probably insist on code being checked into something like a shared svn repositry. If either breaks the agreement, you have what you have paid for so far, and they have been paid for the work they have done so far.

Unfortunately, none of this helps you, but hopefully others will learn from it.

This is the first time I ever opt-in to to go hire someone online (beyond just small task under $20). Live and learn.

I am sorry to hear that, I hope you can work something out with him to get the process going again.

I'm "decent" now but considering the fact I grew up fairly poor and had to fight my way to the top... $3,500 is quite a bit of money.

Honestly if it were me I'd be pursuing any avenue of action I could, if you didn't sign an NDA then now is the time to start talking, I'd do enough talking to earn $3,500 that's for sure, social media is awesome hint hint.

How someone can assume they are simply keeping the money for time spent is beyond me... sure we've all had that one seemingly insane client but even then we have no right you simply refund and go about your business, this should have been the case with you they should have refunded your money or in the least considering time spent on the project refunded at least I repeat at least 85-90% of it if not all.

^ The thing is, years ago working for a company I would have said full refund, now owning my own and knowing time involved in modifications I can see how they may assume it's ok to keep the money but ALL of it? No sir some type of refund is certainly due, that's APPARENT imo and keeping it all would be wrong plain and simple.

As far as I understand the pricetag was significantly higher, and the 3500 bucks were part payment. So depending on the amount of work done the coders may even be entitled to the money. But then they need to hand over the code. Either the code, and it has to show the hours, or the money.