- This topic has 8 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Topic
-
Dunne and Cook signed a contract requiring Cook to rebind 500 of Dunne’s books at $3.00 per book. Later, Dunne requested, in good faith, that the price be reduced to $2.70 per book. Cook agreed orally to reduce the price to $2.70.
Under the circumstances, the oral agreement is
A. Enforceable, but proof of it is inadmissible into evidence.
B. Enforceable, and proof of it is admissible into evidence.
C. Unenforceable, because Dunne failed to give consideration, but proof of it is otherwise admissible into evidence.
D. Unenforceable, due to the statute of frauds, and proof of it is inadmissible into evidence.
C. There are two issues here. The first is the enforceability of the modification. This modification is invalid, because it is a contract for services, and it is not supported by new consideration. Dunne has not agreed to do anything new, and, therefore, since he had a preexisting duty to pay $3.00 per book, the modification cannot be enforced. The second issue is whether evidence of the agreement can be introduced for other reasons. The answer here is yes. The parole evidence rule prohibits testimony about agreements that existed before a contract was signed, because contracts are generally presumed to be the final word on an agreement. However, evidence about things taking place after a contact was signed (subsequent modification) is admissible.
The very lesson this question came from said the opposite, that a modification like this, without any new consideration, if the other party agrees to it, IS ENFORCEABLE. Am I missing something here?
- The topic ‘Confused about contract modification’ is closed to new replies.
