An asserted earlier undertaking

Suppose a purchaser tells a service team, “You already promised today’s extract.” The only available message is a draft offer marked as awaiting the service owner’s approval. In this constructed arrangement, only that owner can commit the team, and an approved work order specifying the delivery institutes its duty. The draft does not establish that duty. Other communications may exist, so neither the purchaser’s assertion nor the missing approval settles whether a commitment was made. Ask for the approved order or another basis recognized by the arrangement.

While that question is open, do not plan the dependent report as though the asserted delivery were established. The separately authorized internal extract may still support the handover if it can arrive in time; otherwise return the missing input and timing to the person responsible for the reporting arrangement. This preserves useful work without declaring either that the service team owes the delivery or that it is released from an obligation.

Now an approved order covering this team, extract and day is found. The duty’s basis is established, but the team reports unavailable capacity. The question becomes restoration or a permitted change to delivery. Under the case’s rule, a capacity shortage does not cancel the order; revising the delivery time requires the service owner’s and purchaser’s agreement. Proposing a delay does not yet revise the order; if agreement fails, its duty remains while the delivery problem and its consequences still need handling. Use MKT.7 to address an owed service contribution and its consequences; the purchase case below follows a missing input through the reporting work. Confirmation of a duty is not confirmation that the extract will arrive.