- 29 -
and that Ms. Svarzkopf was unaware of any oral modification by Mr.
Palmer and Olin Ordnance of paragraph 6 of the Marion plant/Palmer
consulting agreement regarding the payment of consulting fees to
Mr. Palmer. That is why on June 2, 1995, after she completed Olin
Ordnance’s invoice payment authorization process with respect to
Mr. Palmer’s approved monthly invoices 0011, 0012, and 0013
covering the period from February 6 through April 30, 1995, she
sought guidance from Mr. Cutler. Mr. Cutler advised Ms. Svarzkopf
to honor Mr. Palmer’s request that Olin Ordnance not pay any of
those invoices until Mr. Palmer directed Olin Ordnance to pay each
such invoice. If, as petitioners contend, there had been an oral
modification of the Marion plant/Palmer consulting agreement in
effect on June 2, 1995, we believe that any such modification
would have been communicated to Ms. Svarzkopf and that there would
have been no need for Ms. Svarzkopf to seek guidance from Mr.
Cutler.
Based on our examination of the entire record before us, we
find that petitioners have failed to show that an oral modifica-
tion of the last sentence of paragraph 6 of the Marion plant/
Palmer consulting agreement was in effect on June 2, 1995, after
Ms. Svarzkopf completed Olin Ordnance’s invoice payment authoriza-
tion process with respect to Mr. Palmer’s approved monthly in-
voices 0011, 0012, and 0013 and approved those invoices and before
she asked Mr. Cutler for guidance, so as to permit Mr. Palmer to
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011