Hypothetical situation:

Party A contracts Party B to do some work. Payment's due some set number of days after the work is published.

Party B gets expectations that the work will be published sooner than it is, for whatever reason. Or maybe Party B thought it was more "on acceptance of completed work" because that's the sort of arrangement B has had in other circumstances.

Party A's deadlines get a little screwy, publication slips around a bit, but it eventually does get out the door. A bobbles the communication ball on this one, and B is in the dark for a long while, all along expecting payment to come sooner than it's necessarily contractually indicated to.

Party C gets wind of what's going on with Party B and hangs the dirty laundry out to dry, characterizing Party A as unethical, scummish, and worthy of boycot (regardless of whether or not this boycot would harm Party B's chances of getting paid by Party A).

Exercises for personal meditation:

Scenario #1: You're friends with Party A, and don't really know Party B at all. Who's being unreasonable here? Who's the asshole? What should have been done differently?

Scenario #2: You're friends with Party B, and don't really know Party A at all. Who's being unreasonable here? Who's the asshole? What should have been done differently?

Scenario #3: You're friends with Party A and Party B. You've got a decent picture of what's going on from both sides of the situation. Who's being unreasonable here? Who's the asshole? What should have been done differently?

Scenario #4: You're Party C, but you haven't spoken out yet. What's the right way to do so? What's the wrong way? How does your message change based on which of the prior three scenarios describes your relationship with Party A and/or Party B?
Shared publiclyView activity