Exercise 9.4
In the case of Winkel v. Family Health Care, P.C., 205 Mont. 40, 668 P.2d 208, Web 1983 Mont. Lexis 785 (Supreme Court of Montana), the issue at hand is whether an oral agreement could be considered a contract. Under Montana law, a written contract can be altered only in writing or by an executed oral agreement. This implies the agreement cannot be considered a contract. There is so much to be proven even if an oral agreement could be binding. In this case both parties do not agree as to what decided upon. The fact that that Loren says that the contract cannot be enforced is really not very important as the main problem is proving a contract exists. Loren could have said something which was understood by Dennis in his own way. In this case, if Dennis could produce any document showing he had received some payment before or some memorandum exists to prove the agreement was made, then this will be proof of a contract. Otherwise there will be no contract as Dennis cannot satisfy the burden of proof and so the agreement will be unenforceable.

Exercise 10.7 J. C. Durick Insurance v. Andrus, 139 Vt. 150, 424 A.2d 249, Web 1980 Vt. Lexis 1490 (Supreme Court of Vermont)
There had been an existing contract before the disagreement which has to be renewed. Both parties did not agree to the new conditions and so clearly there is no offer and acceptance. Andrus even went as far as saying if Durick will not accept his condition then he will move to another company. For Durick to go ahead and send a contract with their conditions and further stating that in case there is no response the contract is valid was not really something reasonable to do. There is no consideration as Andrus did not pay the premium implying there is no contract. All the essential elements to be satisfied for a contract to exist are absent in this case and the only proof of a prior contract