Court Opinion

ID: 9577801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:38:14.233147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:17.066981
License: Public Domain

McGRAW, Justice,
dissenting:
The majority’s disposition of the modification issue in this case directly conflicts with the most fundamental principles of contract law. Evidence of this conflict is reflected in its admission that, “[Wjhether the written contract was modified so as to preclude termination under the seven-day provision, presents a more difficult question, because it is an issue which ordinarily would be determined by the jury and not by the court.” Inevitably, when courts endeavor to usurp the fact-finding function of the jury, feelings of inadequacy are expressed as recognition of the difficulty of the issue presented. Treading in unfamiliar territory, courts faced with this conflict often resort to obfuscation to achieve the desired result.
In W.L. Thaxton Const. Co. v. O.K. Const. Co., 170 W.Va. 657, 295 S.E.2d 822, 825 (1982), this Court recognized, “It was for the jury to decide if the written and signed contract had been orally modified ...” This observation conforms to the general rule throughout the country that whether a written contract has been modified by oral agreement is a question of fact for the jury. See Litman v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 739 F.2d 1549, 1557 (11th Cir.1984); Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 524 F.2d 944, 952 (5th Cir.1975); General Ins. Co. v. Hercules Const. Co., 385 F.2d 13, 19 (8th Cir.1967); Palmiero v. Spada Distributing Co., 217 F.2d 561, 566 (9th Cir.1954); Reiver v. Murdoch & Walsh, P.A., 625 F.Supp. 998, 1010 (D.Del.1985); Magill v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 327 F.Supp. 1097, 1108 (E.D.Pa.1971), aff'd, 464 F.2d 294 (3d Cir.1972); Lightsey v. Orgill Bros., 454 So.2d 1002, 1005 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); Linda Elenia Askew Trust v. Hopkins, 15 Ark.App. 19, 23-24, 688 S.W.2d 316, 318 (1985); Grove v. Grove Valve & Regulator Co., 4 Cal. App.3d 299, 313, 84 Cal.Rptr. 300, 308 (1970); Uinta Oil Refining Co. v. Ledford, 125 Colo. 429, 432, 244 P.2d 881, 884 (1952); Three S. Development Co. v. Santore, 193 Conn. 174, 177-179, 474 A.2d 795, 798 (1984); Norair Engineering Corp. v. Port*608er Trucking Co., 163 Ga.App. 780, 784, 295 S.E.2d 155, 158 (1982); Resource Engineering, Inc. v. Siler, 94 Idaho 935, 938, 500 P.2d 836, 839 (1972); Stonecipher v. Pillatsch, 30 Ill.App.3d 140, 143, 332 N.E.2d 151, 154 (1975); Davenport Osteopathic Hospital Ass'n v. Hospital Service, Inc., 261 Iowa 247, 253, 154 N.W.2d 153, 157 (1967); Syl. pt. 2, Coonrod & Walz Const. Co. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc., 217 Kan. 63, 535 P.2d 971 (1975); University National Bank v. Wolfe, 279 Md. 512, 523, 369 A.2d 570, 576 (1977); L. W. Severance & Sons v. Angley, 332 Mass. 432, 438, 125 N.E.2d 415, 419 (1955); Green v. Pendergraft, 253 Miss. 891, 900, 179 So.2d 831, 836 (1965); Gallizzi v. Scavo, 406 Pa. 629, 179 A.2d 638, 646 (1962); Stowers v. Harper, 376 S.W.2d 34, 39 (Tex.Civ.App.1964).
The purchaser in this action requested the seller to increase production. In order to increase production, additional equipment was needed. In order to purchase additional equipment, additional capital was needed. In order to receive additional capital, in the form of a loan, a guarantee that the purchaser would absorb the increased production was needed. The purchaser, desirous of increased production, represented to both the seller and the bank that it would purchase any additional tonnage. Relying upon this representation, the bank loaned the seller $250,000. This money was applied to the purchase and renovation of additional equipment, and production increased by 45%. Four months later, after a downturn in the market, the buyer terminated the contract. Granted this scenario, it is absurd to assert that insufficient facts were presented to raise an issue of fact with respect to whether modification of the termination provision was intended by the parties. Thus, I dissent.