The main part was that the engraver didn't really fullfill his part of the
agreement, but still wanted to be paid
Sorry, I misunderstood this - I thought that the engraver had done his stuff and that the composer for whatever reason did not want to pay him, but wanted the finale "masters" so that another engraver could work on them, hence my comment.
Given that the engraver had not fulfilled his obligations, then, as the composer, I would cut my losses and take my manuscript to another engraver, making sure, of course, (just in case there were legal proceedings to follow) that I had documentary evidence of how and why the first engraver had not fulfillled his contract.
As the potential second engraver I would stay as far away from the argument as I could but would also look very carefullly at the reasons for the arguments between the potential client and his first engraver and question whether I too could be subject to the same criticism half way throught the job and so finish up working for nothing. I would ask myself if I thought the the first criticisms were justified. (Every workman I have ever had in my house has told me how bad the previous workman was.)
I think all this emphasises the importance of having a clear contract which makes the expectations of both parties explicitly clear so that the potential for falling out along way is dimished as much as possible.
All the best,
Lawrence
http://lawrenceyates.co.uk
