N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 25
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-209 (2026)

Modification, rescission, and waiver

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 25 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) An agreement modifying a contract within this Article needs no consideration to be binding.

(b) A signed agreement that excludes modification or rescission except by a signed writing or other signed record cannot be otherwise modified or rescinded, but except as between merchants this requirement on a form supplied by the merchant must be separately signed by the other party.

(c) The requirements of the statute of frauds section of this Article (G.S. 25-2-201) must be satisfied if the contract as modified is within its provisions.

(d) Although an attempt at modification or rescission does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (b) or (c) of this section, it can operate as a waiver.

(e) A party that 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.  (1965, c. 700, s. 1; 2025-25, s. 120.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Thermal Design, Inc. v. M&M Builders, Inc., 698 S.E.2d 516 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thermal Design, Inc. v. M&M Builders, Inc., 698 S.E.2d 516 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 9× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-209 (2)-(3) (2009); see 2A Lary Lawrence Lawrence’s Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code § 2-209:90 (2008) [Lawrence] (“The exceptions to the statute of frauds that are applicable to an original contract also apply to a modification.”
Dealers Supply Co., Inc. v. Cheil Indus., Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 579 (M.D.N.C. 2004). · cites it 2× “See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 25-2-209(4) (“Although an attempt at modification .”
Sara Lee Corp. v. Quality Mfg., Inc., 201 F. Supp. 2d 608 (M.D.N.C. 2002). · cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-209 (1) (West 2001).”
Varnell v. Henry M. Milgrom, Inc., 337 S.E.2d 616 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “He relies on G.S. 25-2-209: (1) An agreement modifying a contract within this article needs no consideration to be binding.”
Mulberry-Fairplains Water Ass'n, Inc. v. Town of North Wilkesboro, 412 S.E.2d 910 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-209 (1). However, in order for the modification to be enforceable, the statute of frauds found in N.”
Danjee, Inc. v. Addressograph Multigraph Corp., 262 S.E.2d 665 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980). “Plaintiff’s action in regard to the 748 arose out of delivery and payment for a new 748 when a demonstrator model was delivered but misrepresented as a new model and breakdowns of the 748 resulting in a costly switch to another machine.”
Bone Int'l, Inc. v. Johnson, 329 S.E.2d 714 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 5× “This created an issue of fact for the jury on the question of waiver under G.S. 25-2-209 (4)-(5), which is not subject to the statute of frauds.”
Wall Recycling, LLC v. 3tek Global, LLC (M.D.N.C. 2022). · cites it 2× “” (emphasis added)); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-209 (5); cf. Briston Metals, LLC v.”
Wall Recycling, LLC v. 3TEK Global, LLC (4th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “1944); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-209 (4); N.C. Gen.”
Carolina Home Sols. 1, Inc. v. Crystal Coast Home Sols., Inc., 2017 NCBC 74 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-209 (1) (“An agreement modifying a contract .”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-209(1) — 1 case
Bone Int'l, Inc. v. Johnson, 329 S.E.2d 714 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985). “This created an issue of fact for the jury on the question of waiver under G.S. 25-2-209 (4)-(5), which is not subject to the statute of frauds.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-209(2) — 1 case
Thermal Design, Inc. v. M&M Builders, Inc., 698 S.E.2d 516 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-209 (2)-(3) (2009); see 2A Lary Lawrence Lawrence’s Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code § 2-209:90 (2008) [Lawrence] (“The exceptions to the statute of frauds that are applicable to an original contract also apply to a modification.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-209(3) — 1 case
Bone Int'l, Inc. v. Johnson, 329 S.E.2d 714 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985). “This created an issue of fact for the jury on the question of waiver under G.S. 25-2-209 (4)-(5), which is not subject to the statute of frauds.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-209(4) — 3 cases
Dealers Supply Co., Inc. v. Cheil Indus., Inc., 348 F. Supp. 2d 579 (M.D.N.C. 2004). “See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 25-2-209(4) (“Although an attempt at modification .”
Varnell v. Henry M. Milgrom, Inc., 337 S.E.2d 616 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985). “He relies on G.S. 25-2-209: (1) An agreement modifying a contract within this article needs no consideration to be binding.”
Bone Int'l, Inc. v. Johnson, 329 S.E.2d 714 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985). “This created an issue of fact for the jury on the question of waiver under G.S. 25-2-209 (4)-(5), which is not subject to the statute of frauds.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-209(5) — 2 cases
Varnell v. Henry M. Milgrom, Inc., 337 S.E.2d 616 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985). “He relies on G.S. 25-2-209: (1) An agreement modifying a contract within this article needs no consideration to be binding.”
Bone Int'l, Inc. v. Johnson, 329 S.E.2d 714 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985). “This created an issue of fact for the jury on the question of waiver under G.S. 25-2-209 (4)-(5), which is not subject to the statute of frauds.”
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.