Cambridgeport Savings Bank v. Boersner

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• \a provision that an agreement may not be amended orally but only by a written instrument does not necessarily bar oral modification of the contract\
• \[A] provision that an agreement may not be amended orally but only by a written instrument does not necessarily bar oral modification of the contract.\
• \[A] provision that an agreement may not be amended orally but only by a written instrument does not necessarily bar oral modification of the contract.\
• reliance on alleged promise by bank to fund interest from loan principal not reasonable where it contradicted clear terms of loan agreement
• “The mode of performance required by a written contract may be varied by a subsequent oral agreement based upon a valid consideration”
• alleged promise by bank that it would fund interest payments was merely hope or expectation on part of defendants, which is not equivalent of either legal detriment or reliance.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).