This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
An agreement between A, B and C can not be modified to C's prejudice by a subsequent agreement between A and B.1 It has been held that a modification by A and B, which does not increase C's liability, can not be invoked by C as a discharge of his original liability.2 A contract between a father and his son, for the support of the father, can not be modified after the father becomes insane by an agreement between the son and the other children,3 though it can, of course, be modified by a contract made between father and son while the father has still capacity to contract.4 If A and B have entered into a contract for
C's benefit, they may modify or abrogate such contract at any time before C has assented thereto,5 but they can not modify it thereafter.6
1 Nickerson v. Russell, 172 Mass. 584, 53 N. E. 141; Doty v. Nixon, 109 Mich. 266. 67 N. W. l16.
2 Nickerson v. Russell, 172 Mass. 584, S3 N. E. 141.
3 Doty v. Nixon, 109 Mich, 266, 67 N.
4Grist v. Williams, 111 N. Car. 53, 32 Am. St. Rep. 782, 15 S. E. 889.
5 Sheffield Furnace Co. v. Coke Co., 101 Ala. 446, 14 So. 672; Spinning v. Drake, 4 Wash. 285, 30 Pac. 82, 31 Pac. 319.
6 In re Mullings Clothing Co., 238 Fed. 58, L. R. A. 1018A, 539; Central of Georgia, Ry. Co. v. Gortatowsky, 123 Ga. 366, 51 S. E. 469.
7In re Mullings Clothing Co., 238 Fed. 58, L. R. A. 1918A. 539.
8 In re Mullings Clothing Co., 238 Fed. 58, L. R. A. 1918A. 539.
9 In re Mullings Clothing Co., 238 Fed. 58. L. R. A. 1918A. 539.