The results which the courts seek to reach by invoking the doctrine of waiver could ordinarily not be attained if any specific form of waiver were required; and accordingly it is generally held that the form of waiver is immaterial.1 Even if the contract contains a specific provision to the effect that the conditions of such contract can be waived only by writing, oral waiver is, nevertheless, sufficient, since oral waiver is regarded as waiving the provision requiring a written waiver as well as waiving the conditions to which such waiver relates.2 A provision in a contract, to the effect that such contract can not be modified unless such modification is in writing, imposes a condition as to such modification, but such provision may be waived by the conduct of the party for whose benefit such provision is inserted in leading the adversary party to believe that full effect will be given to the oral modification.3 Where a provision which requires a written notice of loss may be waived, such waiver need not be in writing.4

Maine. Lane v. Steward, 20 Me. 98.

Maryland. Schwartz v. Wilmer, 90 Md. 136, 44 Atl. 1059.

Massachusetts. Rindge v. Kimball, 124 Mass. 209; Toole v. Crafts, 193 Mass. 110, 118 Am. St. Rep. 455, 78 N. E. 775.

Minnesota. Lockwood v. Bock, 50 Minn. 142, 52 N. W. 391.

Hew York. Sheldon v. Horton, 43 N. Y. 93, 3 Am. Rep. 669; Ross v. Hurd, 71 N. Y. 14, 27 Am. Rep 1.

Pennsylvania. Day v. Ridgway, 17 Pa. St. 303; Barclay v. Weaver, 19 Pa. St. 396, 57 Am. Dec. 661; Annville National Bank v. Kettering, 106 Pa. St. 531, 51 Am. Rep. 536; Burgettstown National Bank v. Nill, 213 Pa. St. 456, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1079, 63 Atl. 186.

12 See cases cited in note 11, this section.

1 United States. Insurance Co. v. Wilkinson, 80 U: S. (13 Wall.) 222, 20 L. ed. 617; Fire Ins. Association v. Wickham, 141 U. S. 564, 35 L. ed. 860.

Alabama. Ins. Co. v. Williams, -Ala. -, 77 So. 159.

California. Arnold v. American Ins. Co., 148 Cal. 660, 25 L. R. A. (N.S.) 6, 84 Pac. 182.

Illinois. Chicago, etc., R. R. v. Mo-ran, 187 Ill. 316, 58 N. E. 335; Foster v. McKeown, 192 Ill. 339, 61 N. E. 514; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Grove, 215 Ill. 299, 25 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1, 74 N. E. 141.

Iowa. Concord Apartment House Co. v. O'Brien, 228 Ill. 360, 81 N. E. 1038.

Kansas. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 69 Kan. 555, 77 Pac. 90.

Kentucky. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Manion, 113 Ky. 7, 101 Am. St. Rep. 345, 67 S. W. 40.

Maine. Copeland v. Hewett, 96 Me. 525, 53 Atl. 36.

New York. Peohner v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 65 N. Y. 195; Beatty v. Guggenheim Exploration Co., 225 N. Y. 380, 122 N. E. 378.

Ohio. B. & O. Ry. Co. v. Jolly, 71 O. S. 92, 72 N. E. 888; Expanded Metal Fireproofing Co. v. Noel Construction Co., 87 O. S. 428, 101 N. E. 348.

Pennsylvania. Fay v. Moore, 261 Pa. St. 437, 104 Atl. 686.

South Carolina. Wilson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 51 S. Car. 540, 64 Am. St. Rep. 700, 29 S. E. 245.

Washington. Richie v. State, 39 Wash. 95, 81 Pac. 79.

Wyoming. Kahn v. Traders' Ins. Co., 4 Wyom. 419, 62 Am. St. Rep. 47, 34 Pac. 1059.

While effect is frequently given to provisions to the effect that a waiver shall be inoperative unless it is in writing, this result is ordinarily reached on the ground that the agent by whom it is alleged that such provision was waived had in fact no authority to waive such provision.5 Where oral waiver in a contract for transportation of goods, which requires written notice, is not recognized, it is either through lack of authority of the agent who is alleged to have waived such provision, or because of the fact that under modern legislation the carrier can not discriminate between shippers by waiving such provisions in favor of individual shippers.6

2 Alabama. Insurance Co. v. Williams, - Ala. -, 77 So. 150.

California. Arnold v. American Ins. Co., 148 Cal. 660, 23 L. R. A. (N.S.) 6, 84 Pac. 182.

Illinois. Phenix Ins. Co. v. Grove, 215 Ill. 299, 23 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1, 74 N. E. 141.

Kansas. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 69 Kan. 535, 77 Pac. 90.

South Carolina. Wilson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 51 S. Car. 540, 64 Am. St. Rep. 700, 29 S. E. 245.

Wyoming. Kahn v. Traders' Ins. Co., 4 Wyom. 419, 62 Am. St. Rep. 47, 34 Pac. 1059.

3 United States. Insurance Co. v. Wilkinson, 80 U. S. (13 Wall.) 222, 20 L. ed. 617.

Alabama. Insurance Co. v. Williams, - Ala. -, 77 So. 159.

Illinois. Chicago, etc., R. R. v. Mo-ran, 187 Ill. 316, 58 N. E. 335; Foster v. McKeown, 192 Ill. 339, 61 N. E. 314; Concord Apartment House Co. v. O'Brien. 228 Ill. 360, 81 N. E. 1038.

Kentucky. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Manion, 113 Ky. 7, 101 Am. St. Rep. 345, 67 S. W. 40.

Maine. Copeland v. Hewett, 96 Me 525, 53 Atl. 36.

New York. Pechner v. Ins. Co., 65 X. Y. 11)5; Perry v. Levenson, 178 N. Y. 539, 70 N. E. 1104; Beatty v. Guggenheim Exploration Co., 225 N. Y. 380, 122 N. E. 378.

Ohio. Expanded Metal Fire-Proofing Co. v. Noel Construction Co., 87 O. S. 428, 101 N. E. 348.

Pennsylvania. Fay v. Moore, 261 Pa. St. 437, 104 Atl. 686.

Washington. Richie v. State, 39 Wash. 93, SI Pac. 79.

4 Bush v. Curry, 131 Ark. 237, 199 S. W. 375; Emery v. Wabash R. Co., 183 Ia. 687, 166 N. W. 600; New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. Wood, 112 Miss. 614, 73 So. 615; Schloss-Bear-Davis Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 171 N. Car. 350, 88 S. E. 476.

5 Northern Assurance Co. v. Grand View Building Association, 183 U. S. 308, 46 L. ed. 213; Roper v. National Fire Ins. Co., 161 N. Car. 151, 76 S. E. 869; Oshkosh Match Works v. Manchester Fire Assurance Co., 92 Wis. 510, 66 N. W. 525.