That was my read also, that the CEO realized that she may have screwed up, and therefore the situation called for her to stop talking and let someone more familiar with contract law decide what she had or hadn't already agreed to, before digging more holes. That doesn't necessarily mean that legal@ is actually going to refuse to pay the invoice, though I can see how you could interpret it as an unfriendly hint that they may be looking closely at whether they really have to do so. Forwarding it to something called finance@ instead for the same decision is an interesting PR suggestion, since it suggests merely bureaucracy rather than opposition, even if it amounts to the same.