Katz counters that the modification is not material and therefore does not affect the underlying contract. Explain who is correct.
Katz offered to purchase land from Joiner, and after negotiating the terms, Joiner accepted. On October 13, over the telephone, both parties agreed to extend the time period for completing and mailing the written contract until October 20. Although the original paperwork deadline in the offer was October 14, Katz stated he had inserted that provision “for my purpose only.” All other provisions of the contract remained unchanged. Accordingly, Joiner completed the contract and mailed it on October 20. Immediately after, however, Joiner sent Katz an overnight letter stating that “I have signed and returned contract, but have changed my mind. Do not wish to sell property.” Joiner now claims an oral modification of a contract within the statute of frauds is unenforceable. Katz counters that the modification is not material and therefore does not affect the underlying contract. Explain who is correct.
Here, the judgement may be in favor of Person K since the problem signifies the strain of ascertaining secured control of the law of frauds. Examination of the written agreement before manifestation may be done. If neither the portion of the written agreement is affected by the following modification nor the matter enclosed by the manifestation itself is required by the law of frauds to be in writing, then the verbal manifestation may not provide the agreement to be unlawful. Henceforth, the verbal modification distresses only a supplementation of time for completing bookkeeping. The basic land sale may be unaltered.