OK> I think, all not so terribly, simply they want delivery under the typical contract. Well indeed. They simply want under the typical contract. I simply want under the typical contract. My contract is unacceptable for them, for me them. OK> there is a sense to address to the lawyer that helped to reformulate with the contract and to insist on change of a place of a resolution of disputes. Sense to address to the lawyer is not present. As from a restatement the essence does not change in any way. If they insist on point "to pay various damages and court costs", and I on that that "will not reimburse what that was losses and all my responsibility is restricted by software cost". That what here sense from the lawyer? OK> it is necessary to consider with the customer - the total small, design procedure difficult, responsibility much, let's search for the compromise. For them compromises similar work only unilaterally." Give you add our points of the contract and we already close the transaction ". OK> Is not present, absolutely optionally. To learn, with whom they permanently work, it is necessary.> Refuse the transaction. Simply refuse. To refuse easily. Here to turn it in the necessary side, it , and it should study, including on such cases.> if responsibility it no more than 1.5 bugs which are real bugs, and losses no more than the license price for which they paid, it is possible, if something is more serious, I their wood would send especially with the Voronezh arbitration and for 2 $. On their format of the contract my responsibility and indemnification are restricted by nothing. I already had to sign similar contracts. But there the total was above at 10-20 time. Therefore it was favourable to take these risks. In this case it is doubtful. Certainly, they assure that at all of them always smoothly and remarkably and any risks are not present and that it is the typical contract which it federal soldiers lowered. But for me these arguments - a kindergarten. I too can tell "I swear! I will pay all damages".