It may help gain perspective if you imagine yourself as an uninvolved third party hired to consult for a contracting agency: "C". Let's say this contracting ag

It may help gain perspective if you imagine yourself as an uninvolved third party hired to consult for a contracting agency: "C". Let's say this contracting agency has an established contract with a weekly renewal clause, either party can nullify their relationship at the end of any given week. C has been working with company "A" for a while now, originally company "A" represented itself/the work it was asking as something slightly different but C went along for various reasons that made sense at the time. After a while, "C" starts becoming a more desirable firm but (for whatever reason) it cannot expand. A new company, "B", approaches "C" with a contract that isn't just more lucrative than the existing contract with "A" but has work that will raise the overall morale of the employees of company "C" in intangible ways that money can't buy. So, "C" looks at the roadmap for work with "A" and picks a good date for both of them for "C" to begin it's contract with "B". "A", doing one of the things that motivated "C" to leave in the first place, has let deadlines slip in a way that makes the planned departure timing horrible. Would you tell company "C" to deprive it's employees for a few more weeks, or more, because "A" can't manage things properly? Or do you think "C" should respectfully follow-through with their original plan? If you weren't emotionally involved I think the answer would be a lot clearer to you.