In this case, Family Health Care (FHC) and Dennis Winkel had a written employment contact. A modified verbal contract was entered into which included a higher salary for Winkel as well as profit-sharing bonus. FHC delivered on increase in salary but failed to execute on the profit sharing.
The issue is whether the verbal contract is sufficient to override the written contract between the two parties. Montana law states a written contract can be altered only in writing or by an executed oral agreement. FHC did not execute on the profit-sharing and therefore may not be liable to pay.
FHC upheld the modified oral agreement when it paid the higher salary. Executing part of the ...view middle of the document...
Andrus expressed this “offer” to Durick insurance however this offer was ignored and the insurance company “offered” the 80% policy. The offer also stated that Andrus policy would be automatically renewed unless he notified them otherwise. The issue is whether Andrus silence is acceptance.
In this case, Andrus expressed verbally to the insurance company that he did not want the 80% policy. In this manner, Andrus effectively rejected the offer being provided. His lack of response to the offer does not constitute acceptance to an offer that he’d already rejected. There was no binding contract between the two parties.
The best solution would have been for the insurance company to provide the coverage Andrus was seeking or inform him that no such policy exist with this company and allow his the opportunity to find that policy with another provider. The insurance company in fact tried to force Andrus into a new policy that they knew he was not going to accept.
Chuckrow Construction Company (Chuckrow) was contracted to perform carpentry work on a Kinney Shoe Store, per the written contact, Chuckrow added trusses to the building that through no fault to either party were fallen. Kinney Shoe verbally acknowledged no fault and agreed to pay for the additional cost to reapply the trusses. At the conclusion of the construction, Kinney Shoe Store refused to pay for the added cost.
The issue is preexisting duty, under the contract Kinney Shoe Store may not be liable for the additional cost because the performance of adding the trusses was already contractually binding and adding more due to unforeseen circumstances does not constitute valid consideration for a new promise. In other words, a party’s offer of a performance already required under an existing contract is an insufficient consideration for modification of the contract.
However, sometimes a party to a contract runs into substantial unforeseen difficulties while performing contractual duties and the contract may be modified to account for these difficulties regardless of the fact that there are no new considerations.
Based on the unforeseen difficulties, it is a fair assumption that Chuckrow will recover the additional cost, the modification to the contract was made in good faith, voluntarily entered into and was obtained without coercion or threat to not complete the construction. The modification is...