STATUTE OF FRAUDS-ORAL MODIFICATION OF WRITTEN AGREEMENT

Authors

Abstract

The vendor sued on a written contract of sale. The defense was that subsequent to the formation of the contract the parties had orally agreed to extend the time for payment and delivery one year. The vendor argued that the contract, being within the statute of frauds, could not be modified by a parol agreement. Held, in Bemis Bros. Bag Co. v. Nesbitt that performance of a written contract may be extended by subsequent oral agreement.

Recommended Citation

STATUTE OF FRAUDS-ORAL MODIFICATION OF WRITTEN AGREEMENT, 31 Mich. L. Rev. 134 (1932).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol31/iss1/27