Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Contract Modification

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Contract ModificationQuestion 1 of 20

A machine shop ordered a custom-built lathe from a manufacturer for $75,000. The written contract required a 50% down payment, with the balance due on delivery. It also provided that any modifications must be in writing. The machine shop paid the down payment. Before the lathe was completed, the shop's owner called the manufacturer and said his business was having cash-flow problems. He asked if he could pay the balance in three equal monthly installments after delivery. The manufacturer's president orally agreed. The lathe was delivered and accepted.

When the first monthly installment is due, the manufacturer demands the full balance, citing the written contract. Is the oral agreement to allow installment payments enforceable? Select one.

No, because the no-oral-modification clause in the contract makes the subsequent oral agreement invalid.

No, because the machine shop did not provide any new consideration for the manufacturer's agreement to change the payment terms.

Yes, because the manufacturer waived the original payment term by orally agreeing to the new arrangement and delivering the lathe.

Yes, because the modification was made in good faith due to the machine shop's legitimate financial difficulties.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Contract Modification

Practice Contract Modification in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Contract Modification, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

When the first monthly installment is due, the manufacturer demands the full balance, citing the written contract. Is the oral agreement to allow installment payments enforceable? Select one.

No, because the no-oral-modification clause in the contract makes the subsequent oral agreement invalid.
No, because the machine shop did not provide any new consideration for the manufacturer's agreement to change the payment terms.
Yes, because the manufacturer waived the original payment term by orally agreeing to the new arrangement and delivering the lathe. (correct answer)
Yes, because the modification was made in good faith due to the machine shop's legitimate financial difficulties.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This is a UCC contract for the sale of goods. The contract contains an effective no-oral-modification (NOM) clause under UCC § 2-209(2). Therefore, the oral agreement to change the payment terms is not a valid modification. However, the manufacturer's oral agreement, coupled with its subsequent performance (delivering the lathe), can be seen as a waiver of the single-payment term under § 2-209(4). The machine shop relied on this waiver by accepting the lathe. The manufacturer cannot unilaterally retract the waiver after the shop has relied on it. A is incorrect because it ignores the waiver exception. B is incorrect because the UCC does not require consideration for modifications. D states the requirement for a valid modification, but the oral agreement failed as a modification due to the NOM clause; it is only enforceable as a waiver.

Question 2

A city contracted with a private company to manage its parking garages for three years at a cost of $2 million per year. In the second year, a newly elected city council passed an ordinance requiring all city contractors to pay their employees a "living wage" significantly higher than the federal minimum wage. This new law would substantially increase the company's labor costs. The company requested that its contract with the city be modified to include an additional payment to cover these increased, legally mandated costs. The city agreed and amended the contract.

Is the contract amendment providing for additional payment enforceable? Select one.

No, because the company had a pre-existing duty to manage the garages for the agreed price and assumed the risk of changes in law.
Yes, because the enactment of the new wage law was an unanticipated circumstance that made the modification fair and equitable. (correct answer)
No, because a government entity cannot modify a contract in a way that provides a windfall to a private contractor.
Yes, because the company's compliance with the new law provided new consideration to the city by ensuring its contractor was law-abiding.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. This is a services contract, so common law rules apply. The pre-existing duty rule is at issue. However, the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 89 allows for a modification without new consideration if it is fair and equitable in view of unanticipated circumstances. A new law that directly and substantially increases the cost of performance is a prime example of such a circumstance. It was not anticipated by the parties, and adjusting the price to account for the new legal requirement is fair. A incorrectly states that the company assumed this risk; while possible, it's not the default rule, and the § 89 exception is designed for this situation. C states a policy argument but not a legal rule of contract modification. D is a weak argument; while true, the better legal basis is the unanticipated circumstance exception.

Question 3

A homeowner entered into a written contract with a contractor for the complete renovation of a kitchen for a fixed price of $30,000, to be completed by June 1. Halfway through the project, the contractor's lead project manager unexpectedly quit, causing delays. The contractor informed the homeowner that due to the need to hire a more expensive replacement manager and pay overtime to meet the deadline, the project could only be completed on time if the homeowner paid an additional $5,000. The homeowner, anxious to have the kitchen ready for a planned family event, reluctantly signed a written amendment to the contract agreeing to the new price.

If the contractor completes the kitchen by June 1 and the homeowner refuses to pay the additional $5,000, is the contract modification enforceable? Select one.

Yes, because the modification was in writing and signed by the homeowner, satisfying the Statute of Frauds.
Yes, because the contractor's need to hire a more expensive manager constituted an unforeseen circumstance making the modification fair.
No, because the contractor had a preexisting legal duty to complete the renovation for $30,000 and offered no new consideration. (correct answer)
No, because the homeowner's agreement was obtained under economic duress, rendering the modification voidable.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This is a contract for services, governed by the common law. Under the common law's pre-existing duty rule, a promise to pay more for performance that a party is already contractually obligated to render is unenforceable due to a lack of new consideration. Here, the contractor was already obligated to finish the kitchen for $30,000. The internal staffing issues of the contractor are considered normal business risks, not the type of unanticipated circumstances that would excuse the pre-existing duty rule under the modern trend (Restatement § 89). Therefore, the homeowner's promise to pay more is not supported by consideration. A is incorrect because satisfying the Statute of Frauds does not cure a lack of consideration. B is incorrect because employee turnover is a foreseeable business risk, not an unanticipated circumstance that would make a modification without consideration enforceable. D is incorrect because while there was pressure, the contractor's threat to breach due to increased costs is generally not sufficient to constitute legal duress.

Question 4

A consulting firm entered into a one-year written agreement to provide marketing services to a client for a monthly fee of $10,000. After three months of excellent results, the client's CEO was thrilled and, in a meeting, said, "You've been doing amazing work. For the rest of the year, we'll pay you a bonus of $2,000 per month." The consultant thanked the CEO. For the next month, the firm continued to provide the same services as before. At the end of that month, the client paid only the original $10,000 fee.

Is the client's promise to pay the additional $2,000 per month bonus enforceable? Select one.

Yes, because the client made an express promise upon which the consulting firm reasonably relied.
Yes, because the excellent results provided by the firm constitute valid consideration for the promise.
No, because the promise was to pay for services the firm was already contractually obligated to perform. (correct answer)
No, because the promise was not in writing and the total value exceeded $500.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This is a services contract governed by common law. The client's promise to pay a bonus is a proposed modification. To be enforceable, this modification must be supported by new consideration from the consulting firm. Here, the firm continued to provide the exact same services it was already required to provide under the original contract. This is a classic application of the pre-existing duty rule. The promise to pay more for the same performance is unenforceable for lack of consideration. A is incorrect because promissory estoppel typically applies where there is no contract; here, there is one, and reliance on a gratuitous promise within an existing contract is less likely to be enforced. B is incorrect because past consideration (the excellent results already delivered) is not valid consideration for a new promise. D is incorrect because the UCC's $500 threshold does not apply to services contracts, and the one-year rule for the Statute of Frauds is not implicated as the contract could be performed within one year from its making.

Question 5

A supplier contracted in writing to provide 10,000 specialized microchips to a tech company at a price of $10 per chip. The contract did not contain a no-oral-modification clause. Before production began, the tech company realized it needed a slightly different chip with an extra feature. The tech company's purchasing manager called the supplier and requested the change. The supplier's sales representative responded, "We can do that, but the price will be $11 per chip." The purchasing manager agreed. The supplier then produced and shipped the 10,000 modified chips.

Is the oral agreement to modify the chip specification and price enforceable? Select one.

Yes, because the modification was supported by new consideration from both parties. (correct answer)
No, because the modification increased the total contract price to over $500, so it had to be in writing.
Yes, because under the UCC, good-faith modifications do not require consideration or a writing.
No, because the sales representative lacked the authority to orally modify a written contract.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. This question can be resolved under both the UCC and common law, but A is the most universally correct answer. The tech company agreed to pay more, and the supplier agreed to provide a different, more advanced chip. This exchange of new duties constitutes valid consideration, making the modification enforceable even under the stricter common law standard. Under the UCC, which governs this sale of goods, consideration is not required for a modification (§ 2-209), but its presence makes the modification even more secure. B is incorrect because while the contract as modified is for over $500, an oral contract for goods can be enforceable under the UCC to the extent that the goods have been received and accepted (§ 2-201(3)(c)). Here, the supplier produced and shipped all the chips. C is incorrect because modifications may require a writing under the Statute of Frauds. D raises an agency issue, but there are no facts to suggest the representative lacked authority; sales representatives typically have apparent authority to agree on price and specifications.

Question 6

A client hired an accountant to perform a complex audit of her business for a flat fee of $15,000. During the audit, the client repeatedly failed to provide necessary documents in a timely manner, forcing the accountant to reschedule other work and incur additional costs. Frustrated, the accountant told the client he would have to stop work. The client, needing the audit completed for a bank loan application, offered to pay an additional $3,000 if the accountant would finish the audit by the original deadline. The accountant agreed and completed the audit on time.

Is the client's promise to pay the additional $3,000 enforceable? Select one.

No, because the accountant had a pre-existing duty to complete the audit for $15,000.
No, because the client's promise was made under duress as the accountant threatened to cease work.
Yes, because the client's failure to provide documents was a breach that excused the accountant's duty to continue.
Yes, because the accountant provided new consideration by agreeing to complete the audit despite the client's delays. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. While the accountant had a pre-existing duty, the client's own actions (failing to provide documents) hindered performance and could be seen as a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. In this situation, the original obligations are in dispute. The accountant's agreement to continue working and meet the deadline despite the client-caused difficulties can be viewed as new consideration. It is more than what was required under the original bargain, which implicitly assumed reasonable cooperation from the client. A is incorrect because it overlooks the impact of the client's hindrance. B is incorrect because a threat to stop work in response to the other party's breach is not improper duress. C is a close answer, but it focuses on excuse from performance rather than the validity of the modification; the accountant did not seek to be excused but instead agreed to a new deal, making D the better answer about the enforceability of that new deal.

Question 7

A farmer entered into a written contract on May 1 to sell her entire organic wheat crop, to be harvested in August, to a specialty miller for $200,000. On June 15, the farmer orally agreed with the miller to also sell her adjacent barley crop for an additional $50,000. The miller sent a confirmatory email the next day summarizing the terms of the barley agreement, which the farmer received but did not reply to. The original wheat contract was silent on modifications.

Assuming the farmer later refuses to deliver the barley, is the oral agreement for the barley enforceable against her? Select one.

Yes, because under the UCC, modifications to existing contracts do not require new consideration.
No, because the agreement to sell the barley was for more than $500 and was not signed by the farmer.
Yes, because the miller's confirmatory email satisfied the UCC Statute of Frauds against the farmer. (correct answer)
No, because the parol evidence rule bars evidence of a subsequent oral agreement modifying a written contract.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The agreement concerns the sale of goods (crops), so the UCC applies. Although this could be viewed as a new contract, it's presented in the context of modifying the parties' overall relationship. The key issue is the Statute of Frauds. A contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more is not enforceable unless there is some writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. Here, the barley agreement is for $50,000. However, the UCC's "merchant's confirmatory memo" rule (§ 2-201(2)) provides an exception. Both the farmer and miller are merchants with respect to crops. The miller sent a writing in confirmation of the contract within a reasonable time, and the farmer, having reason to know its contents, did not object in writing within 10 days of receipt. Therefore, the memo satisfies the Statute of Frauds against the farmer. A is not the best answer because the primary hurdle is the Statute of Frauds, not consideration. B is incorrect because it overlooks the merchant's confirmatory memo exception. D is incorrect because the parol evidence rule does not apply to subsequent modifications.

Question 8

A manufacturer entered into a written agreement to supply a key component to a buyer for one year at a fixed price. The agreement contained a clause stating, "This agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties." Six months later, the buyer telephoned the manufacturer and requested a change in the component's specifications, which would slightly decrease the manufacturer's cost of production. The manufacturer's representative orally agreed to the change. For the next two months, the manufacturer delivered the modified components, and the buyer accepted and paid for them without objection.

If a dispute arises over the specification change, is the oral modification enforceable? Select one.

No, because the contract expressly required any modification to be in a signed writing.
No, because the buyer did not provide any new consideration for the manufacturer's agreement to change the specification.
Yes, because the no-oral-modification clause is not enforceable under the UCC.
Yes, because the parties' conduct of delivering and accepting the modified goods operated as a waiver of the writing requirement. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. This contract is for the sale of goods, governed by UCC Article 2. Under UCC § 2-209(2), a no-oral-modification (NOM) clause is effective. However, under § 2-209(4), an attempted modification that is not in writing but should be can operate as a waiver. Here, the parties acted in reliance on the oral modification—the manufacturer delivered the modified component and the buyer accepted it. This course of performance constitutes a waiver of the NOM clause with respect to the goods already delivered and accepted. A is incorrect because it ignores the waiver provision of the UCC. B is incorrect because the UCC does not require consideration for modifications. C is incorrect because NOM clauses are generally enforceable under the UCC, unlike at common law.

Question 9

Your client, a software development firm, signed a written contract with a corporation to create a custom logistics program for $80,000. The contract specified a delivery date of December 1. In October, the corporation's project manager called your client and requested that several significant features be added to the software. Your client's CEO orally agreed to add the features for an additional $15,000. The original written contract did not contain a no-oral-modification clause. Your client completed the enhanced software and delivered it on time. The corporation is now refusing to pay the additional $15,000, claiming the oral agreement is invalid.

What is your client's best argument for enforcing the oral agreement to pay the additional $15,000? Select one.

The agreement is enforceable under UCC § 2-209 because it was a good-faith modification of a contract for goods.
The agreement is enforceable because the client provided new consideration by adding significant features not required by the original contract. (correct answer)
The agreement is enforceable because the corporation waived its right to object by accepting the enhanced software.
The agreement is enforceable because the oral modification did not need to be in writing since the original contract was for less than one year.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The contract is for the creation of custom software, which is generally treated as a service contract governed by common law. Under the common law, a modification requires new consideration. Here, the client provided new consideration by agreeing to add significant features that were outside the scope of the original contract. This is not a case of merely promising to perform a pre-existing duty; it is a promise to do more. Therefore, the corporation's reciprocal promise to pay more is enforceable. A is incorrect because this is a services contract, not a contract for the sale of goods, so the UCC does not apply. C describes waiver, which is more relevant to NOM clauses or conditions, but lack of consideration is the primary issue here. D is incorrect because the one-year provision of the Statute of Frauds is not the relevant rule; the issue is consideration.

Question 10

Is the client's promise to pay the additional $2,000 per month bonus enforceable? Select one.

Yes, because the client made an express promise upon which the consulting firm reasonably relied.
Yes, because the excellent results provided by the firm constitute valid consideration for the promise.
No, because the promise was to pay for services the firm was already contractually obligated to perform. (correct answer)
No, because the promise was not in writing and the total value exceeded $500.

Question 11

Is the oral agreement to modify the chip specification and price enforceable? Select one.

Yes, because the modification was supported by new consideration from both parties. (correct answer)
No, because the modification increased the total contract price to over $500, so it had to be in writing.
Yes, because under the UCC, good-faith modifications do not require consideration or a writing.
No, because the sales representative lacked the authority to orally modify a written contract.

Question 12

A clothing designer had a written contract to sell 500 unique dresses to a department store for $100,000. The contract required delivery by November 1. It also included a clause stating, "No waiver or modification of the terms hereof shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the party to be charged." In late October, the designer realized she could only complete 450 dresses by the deadline. She called the store's buyer, who orally stated, "That's fine, just send the 450 by November 1, and we'll pay you a pro-rata amount." The designer shipped the 450 dresses.

If the department store later sues the designer for breach of contract for failure to deliver the full 500 dresses, what is the designer's best defense? Select one.

The contract was validly modified by the oral agreement, as modifications under the UCC do not require consideration.
The buyer's oral statement constituted a waiver of the right to receive the full quantity, on which the designer relied. (correct answer)
The no-oral-modification clause is unenforceable because the parties are merchants.
The doctrine of substantial performance applies, as delivering 90% of the dresses is sufficient.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. This is a UCC Article 2 contract with a no-oral-modification (NOM) clause. Under UCC § 2-209(2), such clauses are effective. Therefore, the oral agreement to reduce the quantity was not a valid modification. However, § 2-209(4) states that an attempted modification can operate as a waiver. The buyer's oral statement agreeing to the lesser quantity can be construed as a waiver of the strict performance term. The designer then relied on this waiver by shipping the 450 dresses. This reliance makes the waiver enforceable, at least for this particular delivery. A is incorrect because the NOM clause made the oral modification invalid. C is incorrect because NOM clauses are specifically validated by the UCC, especially between merchants. D is incorrect because the UCC has a "perfect tender" rule, and substantial performance is not the primary defense, although the concepts are related; waiver is the more direct and accurate defense here.

Question 13

Your client, a property management company, has a three-year contract to manage an apartment building. The contract contains a clause allowing the building owner to terminate the contract for any reason with 30 days' notice. After one year, the owner, pleased with your client's performance, sent a signed letter to your client stating, "In consideration of your excellent work, I hereby relinquish my right to terminate our contract for convenience." Two months later, the owner had a dispute with your client and gave 30 days' notice of termination, citing the original contract clause.

Is the owner's promise to relinquish the termination right an enforceable modification? Select one.

No, because the promise was based on past consideration and your client provided no new consideration. (correct answer)
No, because the original contract was for a term of years, so any material modification had to be supported by a new writing.
Yes, because the owner's promise was in a signed writing and therefore requires no consideration to be binding.
Yes, because your client's continued excellent performance constituted reliance on the owner's promise.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. This is a services contract modification governed by common law. The owner's promise to give up a valuable legal right (the right to terminate for convenience) must be supported by new consideration from your client. The letter explicitly states the reason is "excellent work," which is past performance and therefore not valid consideration. Your client did not promise anything in return—they were already obligated to manage the property. Therefore, the owner's promise is a gratuitous one and unenforceable. B is incorrect because while the modification was in writing, it still lacks consideration. C states a rule that exists in a few jurisdictions by statute but is not the general common law rule. D is a promissory estoppel argument, but it is weak here because the client was just continuing to perform its pre-existing duty, so it is difficult to show detrimental reliance.

Question 14

A graphic designer contracted to create a new logo for a company for a fee of $4,000. After the designer submitted several initial concepts, the company's marketing director was unhappy and demanded a complete change in artistic direction. The parties had a contentious meeting, after which they signed a short document stating: "The parties agree to modify the contract. Designer will create three new logo concepts based on the new direction. Company will pay a total fee of $5,000." The designer created the new logos, but the company now claims it is only obligated to pay the original $4,000.

Is the written modification increasing the fee to $5,000 enforceable? Select one.

Yes, because the written modification was signed by both parties, it is presumed to be supported by consideration.
No, because the designer had a pre-existing duty to create a logo satisfactory to the company.
Yes, because the agreement arose from a disputed performance and represents a settlement of that dispute. (correct answer)
No, because the company's demand for a change in direction constituted economic duress.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This scenario involves a good-faith dispute over performance under the original contract. When parties have a genuine disagreement about their obligations, a subsequent agreement to resolve that dispute (often called a settlement or an accord) is enforceable. The consideration for the new agreement is the surrender of each party's claims under the old agreement. Here, the company's promise to pay more and the designer's promise to create entirely new concepts constitute a valid modification that settled their dispute. A is not the best answer; while the writing is evidence, it's the underlying settlement that provides the consideration. B is incorrect because the scope of the duty was in dispute. D is incorrect as a good-faith disagreement and hard bargaining do not rise to the level of duress.

Question 15

A university hired a professor for a three-year term. The written contract specified her teaching duties. In the second year, the department chair asked if the professor would take on the additional role of undergraduate advisor, a time-consuming administrative task not mentioned in her contract. The chair orally promised a $5,000 stipend for this extra work. The professor agreed and performed the advising duties for the entire academic year. The university is now refusing to pay the stipend.

Is the university's promise to pay the $5,000 stipend enforceable? Select one.

Yes, because the professor's performance of additional duties beyond those specified in her original contract constitutes valid consideration for the modification. (correct answer)
No, because the modification was not in writing and the original employment contract was for a term longer than one year.
No, because as a salaried employee, the professor had a pre-existing duty to perform any tasks assigned by her superior.
Yes, because the university would be unjustly enriched by accepting the professor's uncompensated administrative labor.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Under contract law, a modification must be supported by consideration. The professor's original contract specified only teaching duties. The undergraduate advisor role was additional work not required by the original agreement, so performing these duties constitutes new consideration that supports the modification. B is incorrect because the statute of frauds requires written agreements only for contracts that cannot be performed within one year; this modification could be performed within one year. C is incorrect because the professor's duties were contractually defined, not open-ended. D states a valid legal theory but A provides the stronger contract-based analysis.

Question 16

A professional athlete had a two-year employment contract with a team. In the first year, the athlete significantly outperformed all expectations. The team's owner, concerned that the athlete might become unhappy with his salary, approached the athlete at the end of the first year and offered to tear up the existing contract and sign a new, three-year contract at a much higher salary, starting immediately. The athlete agreed and signed the new contract. A month later, the owner had a change of heart and declared that the team would only honor the original two-year deal.

Is the new three-year contract enforceable? Select one.

No, because the athlete was under a pre-existing duty to play for the team for another year.
No, because the team owner's promise was a gift motivated by past performance, which is not valid consideration.
Yes, because the parties mutually agreed to rescind the original contract and enter into a new one. (correct answer)
Yes, but only for the remaining term of the original contract, as the extension lacks consideration.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This scenario illustrates a valid method of modifying a common law contract to avoid the pre-existing duty rule. The parties can mutually agree to rescind the existing contract and then enter into a new, different contract. The consideration for the rescission is each party's discharge of the other's remaining duties. The new contract is then formed with new consideration from both sides (the athlete's promise to play for three more years, the team's promise to pay the higher salary). This is not considered a mere modification but a substitution of contracts. A is incorrect because the mutual rescission effectively terminated the pre-existing duty. B is incorrect because while motivated by past performance, the new contract involved new promises for future performance on both sides. D is an illogical compromise; the new contract is either valid in its entirety or not at all.

Question 17

A landlord and a tenant have a written five-year lease for a commercial property. The lease requires the tenant to pay rent on the first of each month and states that "any modification to this lease must be in a writing signed by both parties." Due to a temporary business downturn, the tenant asked the landlord if rent for three months could be paid on the 15th of the month instead of the 1st. The landlord orally agreed. For two months, the tenant paid on the 15th and the landlord accepted the payments without protest.

Before the third month's rent is due, the landlord informs the tenant that all future payments must be made on the 1st of the month, per the written lease. Is the landlord's demand effective? Select one.

No, because the landlord's acceptance of two late payments permanently modified the contract.
No, because the oral modification was supported by the tenant's continued occupancy, which is valid consideration.
Yes, because the no-oral-modification clause made the oral agreement unenforceable from the outset.
Yes, because even if the landlord's conduct constituted a waiver, the waiver can be retracted for future payments with reasonable notice. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. While no-oral-modification clauses in contracts not governed by the UCC (like leases) are often not strictly enforced, the landlord's conduct of accepting late payments can be seen as a waiver of the right to demand payment on the 1st for those specific months. However, a waiver of a condition can be retracted for future performances, provided the other party has not materially relied on the waiver and is given reasonable notice of the retraction. Here, the landlord gave notice before the next payment was due, allowing the tenant to comply. Therefore, the landlord can retract the waiver and reinstate the original payment date. A is incorrect because a waiver through course of performance does not automatically result in a permanent modification. B is incorrect as continued occupancy was a pre-existing duty. C is an overstatement; while the NOM clause is a strong argument, the conduct of the parties can create a waiver or estoppel argument, making D the more precise answer.

Question 18

Is the client's promise to pay the additional $3,000 enforceable? Select one.

No, because the accountant had a pre-existing duty to complete the audit for $15,000.
No, because the client's promise was made under duress as the accountant threatened to cease work.
Yes, because the client's failure to provide documents was a breach that excused the accountant's duty to continue.
Yes, because the accountant provided new consideration by agreeing to complete the audit despite the client's delays. (correct answer)

Question 19

A homeowner and a landscape architect signed a detailed written agreement for a garden design and installation project for a total price of $25,000. The agreement contained a clause stating, "This is the entire agreement between the parties, and it may be modified only by a writing signed by both homeowner and architect." As the project progressed, the homeowner orally requested that the architect substitute less expensive paving stones for the specified slate, which would save the architect $2,000 in material costs. The architect orally agreed. The architect completed the project using the less expensive stones, but the final invoice was for the full $25,000.

Is the homeowner obligated to pay the full $25,000 contract price? Select one.

Yes, because the oral modification was invalid due to the no-oral-modification clause in the written contract.
Yes, because the homeowner did not provide any consideration for the architect's promise to use cheaper materials.
No, because the oral modification to lower the price is enforceable against the architect. (correct answer)
No, because the architect will be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain the $2,000 cost savings.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This is a common law contract for services. At common law, no-oral-modification clauses are generally not enforced on the theory that parties can orally modify any part of their agreement, including the clause that forbids oral modifications. The oral agreement to substitute cheaper materials for a presumably lower price (or as a favor) is a valid subsequent agreement. It is supported by consideration: the architect's consideration is the cost savings, and the homeowner's consideration is accepting a non-conforming, cheaper material. Therefore, the oral modification is enforceable. A is incorrect because it applies the UCC rule for NOM clauses to a common law contract. B is incorrect because there was consideration. D is a possible alternative theory, but C is the more direct contract law answer.

Question 20

A furniture maker contracted to build and deliver 100 custom oak chairs to a restaurant for $500 per chair, for a total of $50,000. The written contract specified a delivery date of October 1. In September, the restaurant owner called the furniture maker and asked if the order could be changed to 120 chairs at the same price per chair. The furniture maker orally agreed. The new total price was $60,000.

If the furniture maker delivers only the original 100 chairs, and the restaurant sues for breach of the modified agreement, is the oral modification enforceable? Select one.

Yes, because a modification to a contract for the sale of goods does not require consideration.
Yes, because the parties are both merchants and the oral agreement constitutes a valid modification.
No, because the contract as modified was for the sale of goods for $500 or more and the modification was not in writing. (correct answer)
No, because the original contract was in writing and the parol evidence rule bars subsequent oral modifications.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The contract is for the sale of goods (chairs) and is governed by UCC Article 2. The key issue is the Statute of Frauds, UCC § 2-201. A contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more must be in writing to be enforceable. This requirement also applies to modifications. The original contract for $50,000 was presumably in writing. The modified contract is for $60,000. Because the contract as modified falls within the Statute of Frauds, the modification itself must satisfy the Statute of Frauds. Since the modification was purely oral, it is unenforceable. A is a correct statement of law (UCC § 2-209(1)) but misses the dispositive Statute of Frauds issue. B is incorrect because being merchants does not excuse the writing requirement of the Statute of Frauds. D is incorrect because the parol evidence rule pertains to prior or contemporaneous agreements, not subsequent ones.