>>>I did not mean to suggest that it was wise, merely that under the law it is >>possible.
>
>However, what the law provides/does not provide is usually up to a judge/jury.

I do not believe it is quite that arbitrary. Statues, common law and case law together in our legal system usually leave little room for major interpretations. It's the unusual case that make the newpapers, not the typical case.

>I always thought that under the UCC, if a contract is established in written terms, any adendums, in order to be enforceable in a court of law, must also be in writing. Anything verbal is a matter of one person's word against another. A written contract on the other hand, is tangible.

If this was correct, we start with the fact that most contracts do not fall under the UCC. In any event, only certain specified contracts under the UCC are required to be in writing, and in only certain specified instances are modifications required to be in writing. In fact, throughout the UCC, provisions are made for modifications to contract by verbal or inconsistent physical actions. For example, take a look at the provisions for failure to deliver goods ordered.

regards,