Quigley v. Wilson
1991 Iowa App. LEXIS 44, 474 N.W.2d 277, 1991 WL 130231 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A modification to a contract not yet fully performed by either party is binding without new consideration if the modification is fair and equitable in view of circumstances not anticipated by the parties when the contract was made.
Facts:
- In 1980, Lester Quigley, Sr. sold his farm on contract to Donald and Janis Wilson.
- The Wilsons made installment payments until 1985, when they assigned the contract to Forrest Hatfield.
- Shortly before February 1986, Hatfield informed the Wilsons he could no longer make the payments and returned the farm to them.
- Donald Wilson then informed Quigley, Sr. that they were also unable to make the upcoming March 1, 1986 payment.
- In response to the Wilsons' financial difficulties and a drastic decrease in the value of the land, Quigley, Sr. and the Wilsons negotiated new terms.
- On March 7, 1986, both parties signed a new agreement, drafted by Quigley, Sr.'s attorney, which reduced the contract price and altered the payment schedule.
- The Wilsons made all payments required under the 1986 modified agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1988, Lester Quigley, Sr.'s co-conservators filed a lawsuit in district court against the Wilsons, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Wilsons were in default of the original 1980 contract.
- The Wilsons filed an answer, asserting the 1986 agreement was a valid modification of the 1980 contract.
- The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, alleging the 1986 agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration, which the trial court overruled.
- A jury trial was held on the issue of Quigley, Sr.'s competency, and the jury found he was competent when he signed the 1986 agreement.
- The trial court then held a bench trial on the equitable issues and entered a verdict in favor of the Wilsons, finding the 1986 agreement enforceable.
- The co-conservators (plaintiffs) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a modification to a contract that is not fully performed on either side binding without new consideration if the modification is fair and equitable in view of unanticipated circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Oxberger, Chief Judge
Yes, a modification to a contract not fully performed on either side is binding without new consideration if it is fair and equitable in light of unanticipated circumstances. The court found that this case was not a simple waiver of a contract right, but a modification creating new and different obligations for both parties. While modifications typically require new consideration under the pre-existing duty rule, the court adopted the modern approach from the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 89. This exception applies because the drastic decrease in land value and the Wilsons' resulting inability to pay were circumstances not anticipated when the original contract was formed. The modification was deemed fair and equitable because it resulted from good-faith negotiations, was drafted by the seller's attorney, reflected the property's current market value, and the seller was found to be competent and not under undue influence.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 89 into Iowa law, moving away from the rigid, traditional pre-existing duty rule that required new consideration for any contract modification. This creates a significant exception that allows courts to enforce good-faith modifications made in response to unforeseen commercial or economic hardships. The ruling provides more flexibility in contract law, aligning it with the practical realities of business where parties may need to adjust agreements to avoid default or litigation when faced with unexpected events. It protects parties who agree to fair adjustments from having the other party later repudiate the modification by claiming a lack of consideration.
