Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 28. CONTRACTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS · CHAPTER 2. CONTRACTS · Part 16. Modification of Contracts
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-1602 (2026)

How Written Contract May Be Altered By Parties

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 28
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 16
  5. 28-2-1602 How written contract may be altered by parties

TITLE 28. CONTRACTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS

CHAPTER 2. CONTRACTS

Part 16. Modification of Contracts

How Written Contract May Be Altered By Parties

28-2-1602. How written contract may be altered by parties. A contract in writing may be altered by a contract in writing or by an executed oral agreement, and not otherwise.

History: En. Sec. 2281, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 5067, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 7569, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 1698; re-en. Sec. 7569, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 13-907.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Morrow v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2014 MT 117 (Mont. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Morrow v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2014 MT 117 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 14× “Section 28-2-1602, MCA; Nimmick v. Hart, 248 Mont.”
Winkel v. Fam. Health Care, P.C., 668 P.2d 208 (Mont. 1983). · cites it 40× “He argues Winkel is not entitled to any profit-sharing bonus because the original written employment contract did not provide for profit-sharing bonus and the written employment contract was never amended as a matter of law.”
Farris v. Hutchinson, 838 P.2d 374 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 8× “We do not accept her argument that the Commissioner's adoption of the regulations allowed him to circumvent the Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act, thus terminating her "at will," therefore mandating a "just cause" requirement.”
AA Constr. of Missoula, LLC v. Choice Land Corp., 2011 MT 262 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 9× “Section 28-2-1602, MCA. Parties also may modify a written contract by an executed oral agreement.”
Richards v. JTL Grp., Inc., 2009 MT 173 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 4× “¶ 20 Richards also argues that the Customer Letter evidenced an executed oral agreement that modified the Sale Agreement or constituted a signed memorandum of a separate and subsequent agreement not to compete.”
Grizzly Sec. Armored Express, Inc. v. Bancard Servs., Inc., 2016 MT 287 (Mont. 2016). · cites it 18× “¶34 Initially, we note that it is undisputed that the obligations of the parties have not been fully performed in this case. Indeed, had the parties fully performed the obligations allegedly contained within the oral agreement, Bancard would have delivered the 15 remaining funds…”
Sherrodd, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 815 P.2d 1135 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 6× “Section 28-2-1602, MCA, provides that a written contract may be altered only by a subsequent contract in writing or by an executed oral agreement.”
Haines Pipeline Constr., Inc. v. Montana Power Co., 830 P.2d 1230 (Mont. 1991). · cites it 6× “Whether the contract was administered as written and the determination of whether there is a breach of the contract are questions of fact to be determined by the trial court. The findings of a trial court in a non-jury trial will not be overruled unless they are clearly…”
Vintage Constr., Inc. v. Feighner, 2017 MT 109 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 3× “There was thus sufficient consideration between them. We infer the parties’ consent to contract from the record, which shows that Vintage commenced the work contemplated and received payments from Myers without dispute until September of 2013.”
Doble v. Bernhard, 1998 MT 124 (Mont. 1998). · cites it 4× “Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Doble has failed to demonstrate the presence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the question of when the eighteen-month contract term commenced and expired sufficient to withstand Bernhard's motion for summary judgment.…”
Westfork Constr. Co. v. Nelcon, Inc., 877 P.2d 481 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 5× “Section 28-2-1602, MCA. The record reveals that during the trial the District Court did not allow West-fork’s offer of the October 28,1987, letter as evidence that the parties modified their agreement price to $1700 per acre.”
Ace Leasing, Inc. v. Boustead, 2002 MT 213 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 4× “Ace adds that any modification subsequent to the cancellation letter, even if it had indeed been agreed upon, would have been oral rather than written, and therefore invalid pursuant to § 28-2-1602, MCA, as an unexecuted oral agreement.”
Show all 38 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.