Opinion ID: 2219648
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of Listing Agreement Amendments

Text: Though the original listing agreement expired on June 1, 1991, Weiss and Kahler extended it by executing an amendment on June 3, 1991. A contract in writing may be altered by a contract in writing without a new consideration or by an executed oral agreement, and not otherwise. SDCL 53-8-7. The amendment expressly provided that except for the changes reflected in the amendment, [a]ll other terms and conditions of the original listing contract [of November 23, 1990] remain unchanged. The relevant change in this amendment was the extension of the expiration date of the original agreement from June 1, 1991 to June 1, 1992. The main purpose of the contract, i.e., the sale of the Weiss business, was not affected by subsequent amendments and thus, the amendment extended the original listing agreement as a matter of law. Also, the conduct of the parties after June 3, 1991 reflects their intention to enter into a valid and enforceable extension to the original listing agreement. Kahler continued to market and negotiate a sale of Weiss's business; Weiss continued to correspond with, telephone, and treat Kahler as his broker. Thus, Weiss's argument that the listing agreement was not extended after it expired on June 1 is without merit. SDCL 36-21A-73 requires that [e]very listing agreement shall be in writing and shall contain ... the signatures of all parties.... Weiss's wife, who was a signator on the original agreement and the amendment of January 8, 1991, was not a necessary party to the amendments dated February 19, 1991 and June 3, 1991: she had no ownership in the business. Her signature was superfluous on the original agreement and would have been so on any amendments; therefore, her signature's absence was inconsequential.