HECI Exploration Co. v. Clajon Gas Co.
843 S.W.2d 622 | Court of Appeals of Texas | 1993
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
HECI sued Clajon Gas for breach of a take-or-pay contract where Clajon agreed to buy minimum gas volumes or pay for the shortfall. Clajon argued it didn't owe payment because HECI didn't request it at the exact end of each accounting period. The Texas court ruled that Clajon must pay within 30 days of receiving any payment request with supporting documentation—timing doesn't have to be perfect. This matters to subcontractors because it shows courts won't let buyers escape payment obligations on technicalities about when invoices are submitted.
Key Takeaways
- •Don't let clients claim they don't owe you because you submitted an invoice late or at an unexpected time. Courts require payment within a reasonable period (here, 30 days) of a proper request with documentation.
- •Always include supporting data with your payment requests—invoices, timesheets, receipts, or proof of work. This documentation is what triggers the payment obligation, not the timing of your request.
- •If a contract says you must request payment by a certain date, that deadline may not be a hard condition to payment. Courts look at whether the other party actually received proper notice and documentation.
Clajon has not met its summary-judgment burden with respect to the issue of daily allowables.
Frequently Asked Question
If I submit an invoice late, can my client refuse to pay me?
No. Courts generally require payment within a reasonable time (typically 30 days) after you submit a proper invoice with supporting documentation. The exact timing of when you submit the invoice is less important than whether the client received it with complete information. Always include detailed backup materials with your invoices to strengthen your position.
Related Cases
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
United States v. Winstar Corp.
The Government's contractual promises regarding supervisory goodwill accounting treatment are enforceable despite subsequent regulatory changes, and the Government is liable for breach when Congress eliminated those accounting benefits.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.