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.
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