It means that the travel expenses that XXX will pay can either have been paid by the Customer, who is an employee of XXX (and XXX will then reimburse that employee for them), or else they can be invoiced from the Customer, meaning that whoever provided the service to the Customer (who is an employee of XXX) has issued the Customer with an invoice for the service; the Customer will then pass the invoice to XXX, who will pay it on the Customer/employee's behalf.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 36 mins (2014-05-30 07:32:19 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

It makes no sense (to me) that "invoiced from the Customer" should mean "for which the Customer issues an invoice", firstly because that would be "invoiced by the Customer", not "from the Customer" (invoiced from X means that payment is requested from X; invoiced by X means that X requests payment), and secondly because it would contradict the idea of XXX paying cash or equivalent to the Customer (service recipient). And that's the whole point of the system: XXX will pay the service provider, not reimburse the Customer. This is standard practice to avoid expense-fiddling and prevent employees fraudulently claiming expenses and pocketing the money. So if the Customer pays for the service and then invoices XXX for it, XXX will not pay that invoice. That's not what it means.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 41 mins (2014-05-30 07:36:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

OK, thanks for the clarification, Ana, but the intepretation remains the same. It says XXX will pay for services invoiced from the Customer (or directly paid by its own employees), but that cash will not be paid to the Customer in respect of those services, only directly to the service provider. So it can't refer to invoices made (issued) to XXX by the Customer, since XXX has said that it would not pay the Customer directly. It must refer to invoices for the services issued TO the Customer (requesting payment FROM the Customer), that the Customer then passes on to XXX for payment directly to the service provider.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 44 mins (2014-05-30 07:39:36 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

And the motive is the same, whether or not the Customer is an employee. XXX wishes to ensure that money it pays for travel expenses is only used to pay for actual travel expenses, and the way to ensure that is to pay only the service provider, not the Customer.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2014-05-30 08:13:32 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The first part of my answer is WRONG, and I should have realised that the Customer can't be an employee here, since if he/she is the whole thing is contradictory. It means that payment for the expenses can have been made directly by an XXX employee. This is tantamount to XXX paying them directly, and in fact the XXX employee will probably have paid them with an XXX company credit card, so in fact XXX will have paid them directly. If the XXX employee paid them in case, he/she will be presumably be reimbursed by the company via the normal expenses claim. But the Customer is another matter; XXX will not make any cash payment to the Customer.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2014-05-30 08:29:09 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I meant "paid them in cash", not "paid them in case" (in the last paragraph).