New York Real Estate Salesperson ExaminationContractsMedium
A tenant has a lease agreement for a commercial retail space. The lease explicitly states that any modifications to the premises must be approved in writing by the landlord. The tenant verbally discusses a minor modification with the landlord, who orally agrees. The tenant proceeds with the modification. Is the landlord bound by the verbal agreement?
- ANo, unless the tenant can prove the landlord's oral agreement with witnesses.
- BYes, because the landlord orally agreed to the modification.
- CNo, because the original lease agreement required written approval for modifications.
- DYes, because the modification was minor and the landlord did not object immediately.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. No, because the original lease agreement required written approval for modifications.
If a contract, such as a lease, specifies that modifications must be in writing, then an oral agreement to modify is generally not enforceable. The 'no oral modification' clause ensures the original terms prevail unless formally changed.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. While witnesses might bolster a claim, the contractual requirement for written consent is the primary legal barrier.
- B. Oral agreements are not binding if the contract specifies written modification.
- D. The minor nature of the modification does not override a contractual requirement for written consent.
No Oral Modification Clause
A provision in a contract stating that any changes or amendments to the contract must be made in writing and signed by all parties.
- Prevents informal changes.
- Enhances contract certainty.
- Oral modifications are generally unenforceable if clause exists.
Memory trick: If it says 'Write It Down', then you can't just Talk It Out.