Background
Deluxe Detail performed automobile-detailing work for Avis Budget Car Rental over a relationship involving roughly 150 to 200 transactions. In October 2025, Deluxe filed a small-claims action seeking $10,000. It alleged that six invoices with principal totaling $7,250 remained unpaid and that late fees had accrued. A default judgment was initially entered and later set aside so the amount of damages could be tested at trial.
Deluxe introduced the invoices, a summary, and a separate “Late Fee Policy.” The policy described itself as a template, allowed Deluxe to customize penalties, and listed escalating charges from $50 after thirty days to $1,000 after a year, with discretionary monthly charges thereafter. The invoices themselves did not refer to that policy. Deluxe’s owner could not show that the policy appeared on its website when the earlier invoices were issued or that anyone had called it to Avis’s attention. The evidence also showed inconsistent late-fee calculations and payments received but not yet applied to specific invoices.
The small-claims court found that Avis had paid or tendered the principal balance. It denied late fees because Deluxe had not established that its policy became part of the parties’ agreement and because the policy was ambiguous. Deluxe appealed, also arguing that it should receive prejudgment interest.
The Court’s Holding
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed. Judge Brown explained that an enforceable contract requires mutual assent on reasonably definite material terms. Terms can arise from a course of dealing, but the record did not compel a finding that Avis agreed to this late-fee schedule. The invoices omitted it, Deluxe did not prove it had communicated the website policy, and the policy reserved broad discretion to customize charges while calling its own schedule only a template.
Avis’s payment of some prior invoices containing late fees did not necessarily prove assent to the submitted policy. The small-claims judge questioned Deluxe’s owner closely and found that the business had not consistently followed the schedule even among the six disputed invoices. Under the deferential clearly-erroneous standard applied to bench trials, the appellate panel would not reweigh that evidence. Deluxe also waived an “account stated” theory by failing to present it below.
Prejudgment interest failed for two reasons. Deluxe did not request it in the notice of claim or at trial, so Avis lacked unequivocal notice and an opportunity to defend. Even apart from waiver, prejudgment interest in an Indiana contract case generally depends on a damages amount ascertainable by simple calculation. Here the court awarded no damages, payments and overpayments had to be allocated, and the factfinder needed to exercise judgment to determine the balance. Interest was therefore unavailable as additional compensation.
Key Takeaways
- A vendor’s online late-fee policy does not become contractual without proof that the customer received or accepted it.
- A course-of-dealing argument needs consistent, identifiable conduct; scattered payments of differently calculated fees may not establish assent.
- Discretionary language describing a fee schedule as a “template” can undermine the definiteness required for enforcement.
- Prejudgment interest and alternative contract theories should be expressly raised in the trial court, even in informal small-claims proceedings.
Why It Matters
Indiana businesses that want enforceable collection charges should put them in the operative agreement or on each accepted invoice, state a definite calculation, and preserve proof that the customer agreed. Posting a policy online after a relationship begins is risky, particularly when the invoices do not incorporate it and the business applies it selectively.
The decision also shows that small claims remain governed by substantive contract law and preservation rules despite their informality. A claimant should plead principal, contractual fees, statutory or contractual interest, and every supporting theory with enough specificity to give the defendant notice. Clean payment records are equally important: if credits cannot be assigned without factfinding, a supposedly liquid claim may not support prejudgment interest. Businesses should also retain the version history of online terms and dated evidence showing when each customer received them.