farther, and place this branch of the law upon a basis more consistent with the realities of business experience and the moralities of life.
It is another rule of the common law that a parol agreement, though subsequently made, is ineffective to vary or discharge a contract under seal,[1] In days when seals counted for a good deal, there may have been some reason in this recognition of a mystical solemnity. In our day, when the perfunctory initials "L. S.” have replaced the heraldic devices, the law is conscious of its own absurdity when it preserves the rubrics of a vanished era.[2]Judges have made worthy, if shamefaced, efforts, while giving lip service to the rule, to riddle it with exceptions and by distinctions reduce it to a shadow.[3] A recent case suggests that timidity, and not reverence, has postponed the hour of dissolution.[4] The law
- ↑ McCreery v. Day, 119 N. Y. 1; 3 Williston on Contracts, secs. 1835, 1836.
- ↑ Harris v. Shorall, 230 N. Y. 343.
- ↑ McCreery v. Day, supra; Thomson v. Poor, 147 N. Y. 402.
- ↑ Harris v. Shorall, supra.
