- 31 - received those invoices, and both Mr. Harris and Ms. Svarzkopf had approved them.15 We further find on the record in this case that the June 2, 1995 oral modification was not made before the amount that Olin Ordnance owed to Mr. Palmer with respect to each of his approved monthly invoices 0011 and 0012 was due. On the instant record, we also find that, as of the time the June 2, 1995 oral modification was made, Mr. Palmer did not have an absolute and unconditional right to receive the amount that Olin Ordnance owed to him with respect to his approved monthly invoice 0013 covering the period from April 3 through April 30, 1995. That is because, as of that time, 30 days had not expired from the date (May 7, 1995) on which Olin Ordnance first received that invoice. We further find on the present record that the June 2, 1995 oral modification was made before the amount that Olin Ordnance owed to Mr. Palmer with respect to his approved monthly invoice 0013 was due. We thus must address whether the June 2, 1995 oral modification precludes application of the constructive- receipt doctrine with respect to the amount of nonemployee compen- sation that Olin Ordnance owed to Mr. Palmer with respect to his approved monthly invoice 0013. We must address the same question with respect to the amount of nonemployee compensation that Olin Ordnance owed to Mr. Palmer with respect to each of his approved 15There was a minor change made to Mr. Palmer’s monthly invoice 0012.Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011