Home / Insights / Modern Communication Methods Affect Contractual Protections

Insight Modern Communication Methods Affect Contractual Protections

Did you know instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook, e-mail, and other text-based communications can nullify contractual protections against unintended contract amendments? Almost every contract has some version of this boilerplate: “This contract may be amended only by a writing signed by both parties.” An essential purpose of a written agreement is to serve as evidence of a deal between parties. The “signed writing” or “anti-oral modification” clause protects this essential purpose by nullifying claims that a contract was modified by oral agreement, or by a written document that was discussed but never signed by both parties. And it worked well in a world where most communication was either oral or by postal letter.

Today, however, much business communication is conducted via instantaneous, electronic text-message tools such as instant messaging, text messaging, Twitter, Facebook, and e-mail. Although we tend to think of these tools as providing an equivalent to an oral conversation, our communications on these networks are, in fact, written. And at least one court has ruled that an instant message exchange can create a binding contractual amendment despite the contract’s signed writing clause. The key facts in the case were that in an instant-message exchange one party proposed an amendment to a written agreement and the other party accepted the amendment. The court reasoned that the exchange was written and, therefore, not a prohibited oral modification. This reasoning, therefore, extends to all written communication technologies.

The court in the instant-messaging case discussed above did not address the question of whether an instant message also constitutes a “signed writing” as required by the typical signed-writing provision. Under Idaho law, however, an electronic communication such as a text message could be deemed a signed writing. Idaho is one of several states to have adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Under this Act, any electronic communication that can be uniquely associated with an individual can be deemed an electronic signature if the court determines that the individual intended to sign the communication.

The take away for contracting parties is that they must think before they communicate electronically. Parties who are willing to forgo the convenience of electronic communication could choose to redraft their boilerplate to exclude all but written amendments signed in ink and physically delivered. This solution, however, will be inconvenient for most businesses today. The only practical, workable solution is to remember that no written form of communication is informal or nonbinding.

If you would like more information or have questions regarding this topic, please contact a member of our Business Group or call 208.344.6000.

Related Insights

Immigration Issues for Employers in 2025 and Beyond

Employers may be facing additional oversight from the new administration, even for those who do not employ foreign workers.

Read

Foundations of Special Education - Key Laws, Rights, and Responsibilities

While special education seems like a no-brainer today, the concept of educating students with disabilities is not that old.

Read

SECURE 2.0 Administrative Pandemonium - Are You Keeping Up?

Over the last six months or so there has been a flurry of activity relative to implementing “SECURE 2.0” provisions.

Read

A Quiet 2024 Will be Followed by a Busy 2025 for Tax Legislation

There were few significant developments in either federal or state tax law during 2024. But it was likely a calm before the storm; we can…

Read