ILNews

Verification letters support estoppel argument

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A series of verification letters from a subcontractor to a contractor provided the grounds for the doctrine of promissory estoppel from being applied to commercial transactions.

Sterling Commercial Credit – Michigan LLC, Hammert’s Iron Works Inc., and National Steel Erectors Inc. entered into a maze of contractor and subcontractor agreements to do construction work at the Veteran’s Administration Outpatient Clinic in Evansville.

As part of those agreements, Sterling purchased invoices from NSE and Hammert’s verified the validity of the invoices. Hammert’s tried to impose payment conditions on the second invoice and did not pay the third invoice.

On appeal, Sterling argued that since Hammert’s had sent verification letters, it was estopped from denying payment on the third invoice and placing payment restrictions on the second invoice.

In Sterling Commercial Credit – Michigan, LLC v. Hammert’s Iron Works, Inc., 49A02-1306-PL-513, the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed. It found that Hammert’s did make promises that it would not assert claims to reduce the value of the invoices. Also, there was detrimental reliance when Sterling believed Hammert’s verification that NSE had done the work.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT