Should You Sue If There Is No Proof Of Delivery?
Cellai Law Offices, P.C. is frequently asked whether it is worth pursuing a claim for outstanding accounts receivables when there are no delivery tickets or proofs of delivery. In cases like this it would depend upon how strong the circumstantial evidence is to show that the receiving company actually received the materials. For example, in a case where a construction contractor claimed that it did not purchase certain materials from a material supplier, the material supplier had many of the material purchases approved verbally with the name of the person placing the order being employees of the construction contractor. When the construction contractor refused to admit that they ordered and received the materials, demands were made to produce the business records of the projects that the construction contractor was working on at the time so that the use of the materials could be proven circumstantially.
Should You Sue If The Contractor Who Ordered Materials Is Out Of Business?
Cellai Law Offices, P.C. is frequently asked whether it is worth pursuing a claim for outstanding accounts receivables when the material was delivered to a construction project after the contractor who ordered the materials was terminated from the project and, many times, is out of business. As in all cases where there is no direct evidence of who received the materials, the strength of the case would depend upon how strong the circumstantial evidence is to show which company actually received the materials. For example, in a case where a subcontractor was terminated and the material supplier supplied materials after the termination but before the new subcontractor came in to take over, Cellai Law Offices, P.C. made the allegation that the only company that could have received and used the materials (material that were important to the project) was the general contractor because it was one of the only constructors on the job who could have received and used the materials at the time they were delivered. Making the circumstantial case stronger was the fact that some of the persons who received the materials were employees of the contractor, which received the materials.