Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Demasse v. ITT Corp., 984 P.2d 1138.

31 citing documents.

Veach v. Chandler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Veach v. Chandler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Eva Cornell v. Desert Financial Credit Union Ariz. 2023
Eva Cornell v. Desert Financial Credit Union Ariz. 2023
Sakthiveil v. Clear Title Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sakthiveil v. Clear Title Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 18 (1999) (modification requires offer, acceptance and consideration).
Aubuchon v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Aubuchon v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶9 To begin, modification of a contract requires “(1) an offer to modify the contract, (2) assent to or acceptance of that offer, and (3) consideration.” ¶ 18 (1999) (citation omitted).
La Borgata v. Retreat Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
La Borgata v. Retreat Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
"[O]ne party to a contract cannot by his own acts release or alter its obligations," ¶ 23 (1999) (quotation omitted), but a party may waive a contractual provision that only benefits him.
Piccioli v. City of Phx. 439 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Piccioli v. City of Phx. 439 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Demasse v. ITT Corp. , , 505, ¶ 16, , 1143 (1999).
Best Western v. Oakland Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Best Western v. Oakland Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Nielson v. Starr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Nielson v. Starr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-10, ¶ 30 (1999) (a contract “must be performed according to its terms and .
Jackson v. Dequina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Jackson v. Dequina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 18 (1999) (modification of a contract requires offer, acceptance, and consideration).
Mesa Airlines v. Condron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mesa Airlines v. Condron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
5 MESA AIRLINES v. CONDRON Decision of the Court even assuming the Note modified the employment agreement, it was permissible under Arizona law.3 ¶16 Employment agreements are contractual in nature; thus, parties “are free to create a different relationship beyond one at will.” ¶ 12 (1999).
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
any modification of those terms must be made by mutual assent and for consideration.” ¶ 30 (1999) (citations omitted).
Proksa v. STATE SCHOOLS FOR DEAF AND BLIND 74 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2003
Proksa v. STATE SCHOOLS FOR DEAF AND BLIND 74 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2003
Roberson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 44 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Roberson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 44 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 16 Because an at-will employment relationship is contractual, however, “the parties are free to create a different relationship beyond one at will ‘and define the parameters of that relationship, based upon the totality of their statements and actions.’ ” ¶ 12 , ( , ).
Gamez v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 34 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Gamez v. Brush Wellman, Inc. 34 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 15 Essentially, the Gamezes challenge the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on their breach of contract claim on the ground that the “record contains no evidence of a valid unilateral modification of the parties’ 1991 [oral] contract.” In support of their claim, the Gamezes argue that, “[i]n Demasse v. ITT [Corp.], [ , ] the Supreme Court held that an employer may not unilaterally modify a contract with an[y] employee without the employee’s knowing assent and the payment of additional co
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce 33 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce 33 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 46 Finally, Taylor’s , is misplaced.
Demasse v. ITT Corp. 984 P.2d 1138 Ariz. 1999