TTTBE #75: Early Answer for Patrons (Patreon)

Okay, so this was, in actuality, a pretty straightforward question about subsequent oral modifications to a contract.  At common law, those are (i) permissible but (ii) require separate consideration.

As a result, the answer is "D" -- the subsequent oral modification here is utterly without consideration to the promisor, so it's just an ordinary unenforceable promise under the basics of contract law.

Weirdly, contracts under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) don't require that subsequent oral modifications be supported by consideration so long as the original contract was valid; that's where the question was supposed to trick you.  So those of you who guessed "A" were probably operating off of the UCC.  (Or guessing randomly.)

I don't think anyone guessed "B", which is good, because it's nonsense.

However, the reason Andrew would have gotten this question wrong has nothing to do with the UCC.  It has to do with the fact that subsequent oral modifications to a contract are incredibly rare.  They basically never happen in the real world.  On the other hand, what happens all the time in the world of contracts is that one party to a contract will later attempt to explain, vary, or contradict the terms of that agreement by relying on extrinsic evidence.

Here's a common example of that:  Jane and Denise sign a delivery contract that specifies, in writing, that Denise is to make payments on or before the 1st of every month.  Later, Denise tries to claim that Jane told her that "it's fine if you're late so long as I get the money by the 15th when my rent is due" before she signed the contract.

In that example, Denise's effort to vary the terms of the contract is governed by the parol evidence rule, which (generally) prohibits introducing that sort of evidence to vary or contradict the written terms of the agreement.  That's why Andrew would have guessed "C".  However, the parol evidence rule doesn't apply to subsequent statements like the promise here.  (Duh.)  Andrew knows this, but, you know, sometimes you have to go with your gut, and sometimes your gut lets you down.

Thomas is now 41-for-75 (54.7%) and on a four-question losing streak.