Citation: 322 A.2d 630 (R.I. 1974).
Summary: City of Newport (Plaintiff) had entered into a 5-year contract with Defendant to collect garbage for $137,000 per year. Following that contract, the city experienced unanticipated increase in the number of residents which resulted in substantial unanticipated increase in the amount of garbage that Defendant was required to collect under the contract.
Faced with the unanticipated circumstances, Defendant twice requested, and received, $10,000 increase in the contract. The city residents sued Defendant to recover the extra $20,000 paid to Defendant.
The trial court applied the preexisting duty rule and ruled against Defendant.
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment. The court followed the “modern trend” of enforcing contract modifications when unexpected difficulties arise during the course of performance of the contract and a modification is made in good faith and without any extortion.
RESTATEMENT (Second) OF CONTRACTS
89. MODIFICATION OF EXECUTORY CONTRACT
A promise modifying a duty under a contract not fully performed on either side is binding
(a) if the modification is fair and equitable in view of circumstances not anticipated by the parties when the contract was made; or
(b) to the extent provided by statute; or
(c) to the extent that justice requires enforcement in view of material change of position in reliance on the promise.
a. Rationale. This Section relates primarily to adjustments in on-going transactions. Like offers and guaranties, such adjustments are ancillary to exchanges and have some of the same presumptive utility….Indeed, paragraph (a) deals with bargains which are without consideration only because of the rule that performance of a legal duty to the promisor is not consideration. See §73.
b. Performance of legal duty. The rule of §73 finds its modern justification in cases of promises made by mistake or induced by unfair pressure. Its application to cases where those elements are absent has been much criticized and is avoided if paragraph (a) of this Section is applicable. The limitation to a modification which is “fair and equitable” goes beyond absence of coercion and requires an objectively demonstrable reason for seeking a modification. Compare Uniform Commercial Code §2-209 Comment. The reason for modification must rest in circumstances not “anticipated” as part of the context in which the contract was made, but a frustrating event may be unanticipated for this purpose if it was not adequately covered, even though it was foreseen as a remote possibility. When such a reason is present, the relative financial strength of the parties, the formality with which the modification is made, the extent to which it is performed or relied on and other circumstances may be relevant to show or negate imposition or unfair surprise.
The same result called for by paragraph (a) is sometimes reached on the ground that the original contract was “rescinded” by mutual agreement and that new promises were then made which furnished consideration for each other. That theory is rejected here because it is fictitious when the “rescission” and new agreement are simultaneous, and because if logically carried out it might uphold unfair and inequitable modifications.
1. By a written contract A agrees to excavate a cellar for B for a stated price. Solid rock is unexpectedly encountered and A so notifies B. A and B then orally agree that A will remove the rock at a unit price which is reasonable but nine times that used in computing the original price, and A completes the job. B is bound to pay the increased amount.
2. A contracts with B to supply for $300 a laundry chute for a building B has contracted to build for the Government for $150,000. Later A discovers that he made an error as to the type of material to be used and should have bid $1,200. A offers to supply the chute for $1000, eliminating overhead and profit. After ascertaining that other suppliers would charge more, B agrees. The new agreement is binding.
3. A is employed by B as a designer of coats at $90 a week for a year beginning November 1 under a written contract executed September 1. A is offered $115 a week by another employer and so informs B. A and B then agree that A will be paid $100 a week and in October execute a new written contract to that effect, simultaneously tearing up the prior contract. The new contract is binding.
4. A contracts to manufacture and sell to B 2,000 steel roofs for corn cribs at $60. Before A begins manufacture a threat of a nationwide steel strike raises the cost of steel about $10 per roof, and A and B agree orally to increase the price to $70 per roof. A thereafter manufactures and delivers 1700 of the roofs, and B pays for 1,500 of them at the increased price without protest, increasing the selling price of the corn cribs by $10. The new agreement is binding.
5. A contracts to manufacture and sell to B 100,000 castings for lawn mowers at 50 cents each. After partial delivery and after B has contracted to sell a substantial number of lawn mowers at a fixed price, A notifies B that increased metal costs require that the price be increased to 75 cents.
Substitute castings are available at 55 cents, but only after several months delay. B protests but is forced to agree to the new price to keep its plant in operation. The modification is not binding.
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC)
§ 2–209. Modification, Rescission and Waiver.
(1) An agreement modifying a contract within this Article needs no consideration to be binding.
(2) An agreement in a signed record which excludes modification or rescission except by a signed record may not be otherwise modified or rescinded, but except as between merchants such a requirement in a form supplied by the merchant must be separately signed by the other party.
(3) The requirements of Section 2-201 must be satisfied if the contract as modified is within its provisions.
(4) Although an attempt at modification or rescission does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (2) or (3), it may operate as a waiver.
(5) A party that has made a waiver affecting an executory portion of a contract may retract the waiver by reasonable notification received by the other party that strict performance will be required of any term waived, unless the retraction would be unjust in view of a material change of position in reliance on the waiver.