Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

It is a general rule of law that oral agreements that materially modify a written agreement within the Statute of Frauds are not enforceable. Tex.Bus. & Comm.Code Ann. § 26.01; King v. Texacally Joint Venture, 690 S.W.2d 618, 619 (Tx. App.--Austin, 1985, writ ref'd N. r.e.); Dracopoulas V. Rachal, 411 S.W.2d 719 (Tex. 1967). However, not all modifications are prohibited. If the oral changes do not materially alter the underlying obligations, for example, they are not barred. Horner v. Bourland, 724 F.2d 1142, 1148 (5th Cir. 1984); Group Hospital Services, Inc. v. One and Two Brookriver Center, 704 S.W.2d 886, 890 (Tx. App.--Dallas, 1986, N. w.h.).

Courts have also adopted the doctrine of promissory estoppel in some cases to forbid reliance on the Statute of Frauds as a defense to the validity of oral agreements. In specific, where one party reasonably relies on the oral promise of another to reduce an oral agreement to writing, the failure to create such a writing will not prevent the relying party from taking the modification out of the Statute of Frauds. The Court specifically invoked both §§ 90 and 178, comment F of the Restatement, ...

Register or login to access full content