Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 11
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-209 (2026)

Modification, rescission and waiver

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1).  An agreement modifying a contract within this article needs no consideration to be binding.  
(2).  A signed agreement that excludes modification or rescission except by a signed writing or other signed record may not be otherwise modified or rescinded, but except as between merchants such a requirement on a form supplied by the merchant must be separately signed by the other party.  
[PL 2023, c. 669, Pt. A, §21 (AMD); PL 2023, c. 669, Pt. E, §1 (AFF).]
(3).  The requirements of the statute of frauds section of this Article (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 can operate as a waiver.  
(5).  A party who has made a waiver affecting an executory portion of the 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.  
SECTION HISTORY
PL 2023, c. 669, Pt. A, §21 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 669, Pt. E, §1 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1978–1984 · leading case: Agway, Inc. v. Ernst, 394 A.2d 774 (Me. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Agway, Inc. v. Ernst, 394 A.2d 774 (Me. 1978). “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-209(1) provides that no consideration is needed to make an agreement modifying a contract binding.”
Cives Corp. v. Callier Steel Pipe & Tube, Inc., 482 A.2d 852 (Me. 1984). “Assuming such a waiver, a fact which was not articulated by the presiding justice in his findings, Cives, under 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-209(5) (1964), was entitled to retract it by reasonable notification unless “[t]he retraction would be unjust in view of a material change of position…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-209(1) — 1 case
Agway, Inc. v. Ernst, 394 A.2d 774 (Me. 1978). “11 M.R.S.A. § 2-209(1) provides that no consideration is needed to make an agreement modifying a contract binding.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, § 2-209(5) — 1 case
Cives Corp. v. Callier Steel Pipe & Tube, Inc., 482 A.2d 852 (Me. 1984). “Assuming such a waiver, a fact which was not articulated by the presiding justice in his findings, Cives, under 11 M.R.S.A. § 2-209(5) (1964), was entitled to retract it by reasonable notification unless “[t]he retraction would be unjust in view of a material change of position…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.