Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 566.1 (2026)

Agreements to modify or discharge contracts and obligations valid without consideration.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

AGREEMENTS TO MODIFY OR DISCHARGE CONTRACTS

Act 238 of 1941

566.1 Agreements to modify or discharge contracts and obligations valid without consideration.

Sec. 1.

An agreement hereafter made to change or modify, or to discharge in whole or in part, any contract, obligation, or lease, or any mortgage or other security interest in personal or real property, shall not be invalid because of the absence of consideration: Provided, That the agreement changing, modifying, or discharging such contract, obligation, lease, mortgage or security interest shall not be valid or binding unless it shall be in writing and signed by the party against whom it is sought to enforce the change, modification, or discharge.

History: 1941, Act 238, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;-- CL 1948, 566.1

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1950–2025 · leading case: Adell Broad. Corp. v. Apex Media Sales, Inc., 708 N.W.2d 778 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Adell Broad. Corp. v. Apex Media Sales, Inc., 708 N.W.2d 778 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 9× “Adell Broadcasting Corporation (hereafter plaintiff) first argues that the trial court erred by refusing to apply MCL 566.1 to the amended agreement. We agree.”

Blazer Foods, Inc v. Restaurant Props., Inc, 673 N.W.2d 805 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “The court held that the releases were valid under MCL 566.1, even in the absence of consideration, and found that the releases barred all plaintiffs’ claims.”

Scholz v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 468 N.W.2d 845 (Mich. 1991). · cites it 2× “MCL 566.1; MSA 26.978(1). 8 The employment policy in Dell provides: "I have read and fully understand the rules governing my employment with Montgomery Ward.”

In Re Certified Question, 443 N.W.2d 112 (Mich. 1989). “[11] Bankey argues that the provisions of 1941 PA 238 , MCL 566.1; MSA 26.978(1), setting out the limitations on contractual modifications of agreements concerning real or personal property, should be applied in this case.”

Small v. Chemlawn Corp., 584 F. Supp. 690 (W.D. Mich. 1984). · cites it 4× “§ 566.1; M.S.A. § 26.-978(1). On August 26, 1983, this court ruled prior to trial that the releases signed by each plaintiff came within M.”

Matter of Cliff's Ridge Skiing Corp., 123 B.R. 753 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1991). · cites it 2× “FOA has argued that Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 566.1, which states that an agreement, in writing signed by the party to be charged, to modify or discharge a contract, mortgage, or security interest in personal or real property shall not be invalid for lack of consideration, is…”

Michigan Nat'l Bank v. Holland-Dozier-Holland Sound Studios, 250 N.W.2d 532 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “MCLA 566.1; MSA 26.978(1). There being no consideration to support the alleged change in payment terms nor any written evidence of the transaction, defendants’ argument falters.”

Hayes-Albion Corp. v. Kuberski, 311 N.W.2d 122 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “MCL 566.1; MSA 26.978(1) provides that any agreement to change any contract is not invalid because of lack of consideration as long as the modification is written and signed.”

Beardslee v. Michigan Claim Servs., Inc, 302 N.W.2d 896 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “When the identity of the alleged tortfeasors and those who would be liable under a workers’ compensation claim are identical or substantially the same, or even arguably interrelated, we can see no reason why all liability cannot be settled in one transaction.”

Bankey v. Storer Broad. Co., 432 Mich. 438 (Mich. 1989). “Bankey argues that the provisions of 1941 PA 238 , MCL 566.1; MSA 26.978(1), setting out the limitations on contractual modifications of agreements concerning real or personal property, should be applied in this case.”

Indus. Steel Stamping, Inc v. Erie State Bank, 423 N.W.2d 317 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “While the trial court’s interpretation of this statute may be correct, we find that the trial court’s determination that the accord and satisfaction contained in the agreement was enforceable upon being executed is contrary to the parties’ "meeting of the minds” as expressed in…”

Harris v. Chain Store Realty Bond & Mortg. Corp., 45 N.W.2d 5 (Mich. 1950). “” CL 1948, § 566.1 (Stat Ann 1949 Cum Supp § 26.978 [1]).”

Show all 39 citing cases →

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.