Opinion ID: 1096634
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Entitlement to Lease Payments

Text: ¶ 17. Farm Services argues that the lease sets the rent at $1,000 per month, while it was paying $1,250 per month. Farm Services argues that there was no agreement oral or otherwise modifying this contract; therefore, Farm Services suggests that it is entitled to a credit of $5,750. ¶ 18. The trial court found: There is no proof before the Court of any written agreement between the County and Farm Services whereby annual rental was increased from $1,000 to $1,250. The County sent annual statements to Farm Services for lease payment due of $1,250. For whatever reason, Farm Services voiced no complaint and paid said amount. This Court finds that there has been no overpayment. The statute of frauds requires that a contract be in writing. Perkins v. Blackledge, 285 So.2d 761, 763 (Miss.1973). The contract can only validly be changed or modified as to any material condition when the parties agree to a subsequent parol agreement which then would render the original written contract as modified an enforceable obligation. Id. (citing Nason v. Morrissey, 218 Miss. 601, 67 So.2d 506 (1953)). ¶ 19. The actions of the County must be viewed as a written modification to the original contract, and the actions of Farm Services must be viewed as an acceptance of the modification. The County sent an annual statement to Farm Services for lease payment due of $1,250. modifying the originally agreed upon amount of $1,000. Farm Services accepted this modification by paying the increased amount, without objection, for over twenty-three years. ¶ 20. The case law concerning the governing of contracts is well-established. In Singing River Mall Co. v. Mark Fields, Inc., 599 So.2d 938, 946-47 (Miss.1992), this Court held: In a contract which purports to be complete, prior or contemporaneous negotiations are merged into the completed contract. Continental Gin Co. v. Freeman, 237 F.Supp. 240, 244-45 (N.D.Miss.1964), aff'd, Freeman v. Continental Gin Co., 381 F.2d 459 (5th Cir. 1967).     For a subsequent agreement to modify an existing contract, the later agreement must, itself, meet the requirements for a valid contract. Petition of M/V Elaine Jones, 480 F.2d 11, 24-25 (citing 3 Corbin, Contracts § 574 at 371 n. 12 (1960)), amended on other grounds, Canal Barge Co., Inc. v. Griffith, 513 F.2d 911 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, Griffith v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., 423 U.S. 840, 96 S.Ct. 71, 46 L.Ed.2d 60 and Canal Barge Co., Inc. v. Griffith, 423 U.S. 840, 96 S.Ct. 71, 46 L.Ed.2d 60 (1975); McGee v. Clark, 343 So.2d 486, 489, supplemented by 346 So.2d 914 (1977). Since a contract modification must have the same essentials as a contract, a binding postcontract agreement must fulfill the requirements of a contract regardless of whether a party characterizes it as a modification or a stand-alone contract. In Kelso v. McGowan, 604 So.2d 726, 731 (Miss.1992), this Court stated: Any contract, however made or evidenced, can be discharged or modified by subsequent agreement of the parties.... The existence and the terms of this modifying or discharging agreement can be proved by the same kinds of evidence that are admissible to prove any other kind of contract....But after these issues have been determined and the court finds, as a fact, the making and the terms of the modifying or discharging agreement, we are no longer interested in the terms of the antecedent contract for purposes of enforcement of them, in so far as those terms have been nullified by the new agreement. 3 A. Corbin, Contracts § 574 at 373-75 (1960). ¶ 21. In the case sub judice, the facts clearly show actions by both parties modified the preexisting agreement. Therefore, the original contract which listed the lease payment as $1,000 is of no moment to this Court. We must now be only concerned with the new terms of the new contract which set the lease payments at $1,250. ¶ 22. Because Farm Services and the County Board of Supervisors modified their preexisting contract to increase the amount of the lease payments, we find the chancellor did not err in determining Farm Services was not entitled to any reimbursements.