In United Lending Corp v. City of Providence, 827 A.2d 626 (R.I. 2003), the Supreme Court stated that it has allowed a claim to proceed in violation of the notice requirements of 45-15-5 when requiring "strict compliance with the statute does not comport with the notion of substantial justice." Id. at 633. The Supreme Court first noted that the plaintiff in that case had made three written demand notices for reimbursement of taxes that had been erroneously paid due to the city's own negligence. Id. at 633-634. The Court then found "that the city provided erroneous property tax information to [the] plaintiff and wrongfully threatened to sell its property at tax sale and then failed to rebate the taxes or even to provide counsel with the courtesy of a response to his demands." Id. at 634.