Opinion ID: 203559
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Oral Modification to the 2004 LOI

Text: As a last resort, Wagner argues that its written contractual obligations were modified orally by agreement of the parties. The district court correctly held there was no evidence of oral modification. The plain language of the 2004 LOI forbids amending the agreement in any manner except by an executed instrument in writing duly executed by an officer of the party to be charged. Still, it is true that Massachusetts law allows claims of oral modification of written contracts contravening such contract language. See Cambridgeport Savs. Bank v. Boersner, 413 Mass. 432, 597 N.E.2d 1017, 1022 (1992) ([A] provision that an agreement may not be amended orally but only by a written instrument does not necessarily bar oral modification of the contract.). State law, however, imposes stringent proof requirements for such oral modification. Massachusetts courts have made clear that [t]he evidence of a subsequent oral modification must be of sufficient force to overcome the presumption that the integrated and complete agreement, which requires written consent to modification, expresses the intent of the parties. Id. at 1022, n. 10; see also Beal Bank S.S.B. v. Krock, No. 97-2241, 1998 WL 1085807, at  (1st Cir. 1998) (Massachusetts ... impose[s] a heavy burden on the party seeking to modify an integrated written contract by subsequent oral agreement.) There is no evidence of any oral modification sufficient to overcome the presumption that the 2004 LOI expresses the intent of the parties. The evidence in the record shows that Wagner merely emphasized to the district court that negotiations were ongoing, without establishing the substance of the alleged oral modification.