S.W.S. Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc.
72 F.3d 489 | Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | 1996
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Southwest Signs performed extra work for Infax without written authorization, relying on Infax's verbal promise to pay if the original subcontractor didn't. When payment disputes arose, Southwest's owner gave conflicting testimony—first saying Infax promised payment only if the subcontractor didn't sign, later claiming an unconditional payment promise. The court sided with Infax, finding Southwest's contradictory statements without explanation made summary judgment appropriate. This case shows courts will penalize subcontractors who change their story mid-litigation and emphasizes the importance of getting payment promises in writing upfront.
Key Takeaways
- •Always get extra work authorization and payment terms in writing before performing—verbal promises are hard to prove and courts distrust inconsistent testimony about them
- •If you give a deposition, stick to that story in later affidavits; changing your account without explanation will hurt your case and may result in summary judgment against you
- •Don't rely on promises from the prime contractor to cover payment if your direct subcontractor fails to pay—get it documented in the contract or a signed change order
A remand order is conclusive only regarding matters actually adjudicated.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I rely on a verbal promise from the prime contractor to pay me if my direct subcontractor doesn't?
No. This case shows courts are skeptical of verbal payment promises, especially when your testimony about them changes. Always get payment terms in writing before performing extra work. If the prime contractor promises to cover payment, insist on a signed change order or written confirmation—otherwise you may lose your claim.
Related Cases
Gall v. United States
Appellate courts must review all sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard regardless of whether they fall inside or outside the Guidelines range, and cannot require extraordinary circumstances to justify sentences outside the range.
Piotrowski v. City of Houston
Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof of official policy as the moving force; isolated employee misconduct insufficient, and equal protection claim time-barred.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
Federal race-based classifications must be analyzed under strict scrutiny regardless of whether they benefit or burden minorities, and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection obligation equals the Fourteenth Amendment's.
Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville
An association of contractors has standing to challenge a minority set-aside ordinance without proving any member would have won a contract absent the ordinance; the injury is denial of equal competitive opportunity, not loss of a specific contract.
In Re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.
The Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act is civil, not criminal, and does not violate due process even when applied to incompetent defendants.
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.