Dc Payment Settlement Attorney Secures $120,000 Recovery

The client was the chief executive of a consumer goods manufacturing company supplying household products to multiple online retailers across the United States, including a Washington DC based e commerce operator referred to here as the defendant. 

Rather than executing a single comprehensive written contract, the parties conducted business through repeated purchase orders, delivery confirmations, and periodic payment settlements, a structure widely recognized in District of Columbia commercial practice. 

Over time, the supplier delivered goods in accordance with the defendant’s orders, and payments were made regularly until the defendant began experiencing internal sales downturns and inventory pressure. 

At that point, the defendant delayed scheduled payments and ultimately refused to remit the remaining balance for goods that had already been delivered and sold, leaving an unpaid amount of approximately $120,000.

The payment settlement attorney first addressed the defendant’s anticipated argument that the absence of a single signed contract negated enforceable obligations, a position that frequently arises in goods payment disputes. 

Under District of Columbia commercial law, including Uniform Commercial Code principles adopted and applied by DC courts, a contract for the sale of goods may be legally established through the parties’ consistent course of dealing, repeated purchase orders, delivery and acceptance of goods, and partial payment performance.

By organizing purchase records, delivery logs, invoices, and prior payment histories, the attorney demonstrated that a binding supply agreement had been formed and performed over time, rendering the defendant’s denial of contractual obligation legally untenable.

Working alongside financial professionals, the attorney reconstructed the full transaction history to calculate the precise unpaid balance, offsetting prior partial payments against delivered inventory. 

This analysis confirmed that the claimed amount directly corresponded to goods that had been accepted into the defendant’s distribution channel and offered for consumer sale. 

By presenting the payment settlement claim with transparent accounting and corroborating documentation, the attorney positioned the lawsuit as a straightforward enforcement of an existing debt rather than a speculative damages action, significantly strengthening credibility before the court.

The defendant asserted that declining sales performance and excess inventory constituted a legitimate reason to withhold payment, effectively arguing that the supplier should share in the downstream business losses. 

The payment settlement attorney firmly rebutted this position by emphasizing that, under Washington DC commercial law, payment obligations arise upon delivery and acceptance of goods, not upon the buyer’s resale success. 

The attorney demonstrated that once goods are delivered as ordered and incorporated into the buyer’s business operations, the buyer assumes the commercial risk associated with resale outcomes. 

Framing the issue in this manner clarified that the dispute was not about shared losses but about a failure to honor a completed transaction.

The court found that the supplier had fully performed its obligations by delivering the goods as requested and that the defendant had accepted and used those goods in its commercial operations.

The judge expressly rejected the notion that internal financial difficulties or inventory management issues could excuse non payment, noting that such factors fall squarely within the buyer’s sphere of business risk. 

As a result, the court entered judgment ordering the defendant to pay the full outstanding balance of approximately $120,000, thereby granting complete relief on the payment settlement claim and reaffirming the enforceability of supplier rights under District of Columbia law.