McCauley ruled that paying the first invoice... even though it was just a total rather than itemized rates... established a contract and accepted the rates.

If that's the case, I can certainly understand why the PUD is appealing. It might also explain why Spradlin is so desparate to avoid the Court of Appeals, and is instead trying to force the PUD to settle by mounting the equivalent of a political campaign.

Are you sure that the PUD approved an invoice for payment based solely on a total dollar amount without any breakdown whatsoever for that total? That just doesn't seem like something any reasonable person responsible for invoice approval would do.

Also, I had heard that more than one invoice had been approved for payment...perhaps as many as three or four, but I'm not certain this is true.

If this is true, then someone wasn't doing their job.

Let's say I'm driving out in that storm and my car goes off in a ditch and the only tow-truck driver available charges me $1000 for hauling my car out of the ditch. Desparate, and with no other option, I pay it. Does this mean that every time I need a tow, if that same tow-truck driver is the only one around, I'm obligated to pay him $1000 because we, supposedly, now have a contract for that amount?

Well, if you were stupid enough to call him again, I'd say yes. But, in this scenario, the "tow truck driver" pulled you out of the ditch last month for $100... and had pulled you out many times before for a hundred bucks (you sure are a crappy driver!). Then, he called during a storm and said, "I know you have a lot of cars in the ditch. Do you want me to get them out?"

"Sure!" you say.

Then, you call a while later... there are still a lot of cars in the ditch... and say, "Are you going to send me a bill?"

"Yes", the tow truck driver says, and keeps on working.

Finally, you get a bill for $3000 dollars. You assume he's pulled out nearly 30 vehicles and pay him saying, "You need to get me a detailed invoice." The unspoken word here is, "You've done work for us in the past so, we're satisfied. But, we're still going to need the documentation for the auditors."

Later, while work is continuing, you get more bills for $3000 and $4000 and $5000... along with invoices saying the charge is $500 per vehicle, plus a surcharge for tow-strap cleaning, plus $98.50 per hour for 16.5 hours per day for his bookkeeper, even when she's getting her hair done.

You say, "No!" and stop work.

The Judge says, "You agreed to $500 per car when you paid the first bill."

In this case, you didn't "call him again". You just didn't stop him from towing vehicles soon enough.

Further, all along, you say, "We need to talk about this bill." But, the tow truck driver will not talk or change the bill. He goes to court and sues for his money.

I started typing something similar to this, and my wife wanted me to check our email. I did and came back to your reply. Thanks for saving me some time.

That is a better analogy, Stash. Crappy driver that I am, I think it illustrates the stupidity of the court case quite well. I just don't get the judge's decision at all. There may be legal precedent behind it but no logic, imho.

Wow.. Thank goodness for AAA...

AAA-Plus here.