What justifies the modification of terms in a contract with a no oral modifications clause?

The modification of terms in a contract that contains a no oral modifications clause can be justified by the presence of sufficient consideration. Generally, a contract modification needs to be supported by new consideration to be enforceable. This means that for the modification to be valid, both parties must agree to some form of value exchange—whether that be a benefit to one party, a detriment to the other, or both—beyond what was originally stipulated in the contract.

Even if a no oral modification clause is present, a modification might still be enforceable if the parties provide new consideration. This rule helps ensure that modifications to an agreement are grounded in mutual benefit and prevents one party from unilaterally changing the terms without the other's consent.

In contrast, mutual agreement alone does not suffice to overcome a no oral modifications clause without the support of consideration. Likewise, mere written consent from all parties, while desirable, does not override the necessity for adequate consideration when it comes to enforceability under the original contract terms. Duress, on the other hand, would indeed affect the validity of a contract but is not directly related to the justification for modifications in this context. Thus, the presence of sufficient consideration serves as the key reason for validating contract modifications despite the