Hovnanian Land Investment Group, LLC v. Annapolis Towne Centre at Parole, LLC

ADKINS, J. In this case, we must revisit contracts with “non-waiver” clauses and determine whether and how a party to such a ⁹⁸ contract can waive its requirements and conditions. Respondent, the owner of a large, mixed-use development near Annapolis, Maryland, agreed to sell a portion of the property to Petitioner, a developer, for the construction of a residential tower. The contract required certain conditions to be met by Respondent prior to the closing, and also contained a clause saying that any waiver or modification of the contract had to be in writing. After two years of negotiation by the parties, Petitioner terminated the agreement and refused to go to closing, alleging that Respondent failed to meet a condition precedent regarding the establishment of a maintenance fee system for the development’s common areas.

Respondent filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, seeking a declaratory judgment that Petitioner breached the contract. Petitioner, in its answer, alleged that the Respondent failed to meet the condition precedent regarding common area maintenance funding, and that this breach relieved it of its obligation to purchase the land at closing. The trial court, in granting summary judgment, held that the Petitioner waived the condition precedent regarding common area maintenance funding, even though there was no written waiver as required by the contract’s non-waiver clause. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed.

We granted certiorari, Hovnanian Land v. Annapolis Towne Centre, 415 Md. 337 , 1 A.3d 467 (2010), to answer the following questions, rephrased for brevity and clarity: 1 1) Can waiver of a contract right be inferred from a party’s conduct where the contract contains an express “non-waiver” provision requiring any waiver to be in writing? ⁹⁹ 2) Did the Circuit Court err in finding that Petitioner waived the condition precedent in this case, when there was no signed waiver? 3) Did the seller strictly fulfill a condition precedent requiring it to “provide annual assessments against the office and retail portions of the Development” when it recorded a declaration that the seller will enter into separate, unrecorded contracts with “some of all Parcel Owners”? We shall hold that a condition precedent may be waived by a party’s conduct, despite a non-waiver clause. Whether Hovnanian’s actions amounted to a waiver, however, was a dispute of material fact that could not be resolved on summary judgment. The question of whether Respondent strictly fulfilled the condition set forth in question (3) also involved material questions of fact, and so summary judgment was inappropriate.

We shall therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings. FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 1. The Annapolis Towne Centre and The Purchase Agreement Annapolis Towne Centre at Parole, LLC (“ATC”), the Respondent, is the owner and developer of a 33-acre, mixed-use development known as the Annapolis Towne Center at Parole (the “Development”). As contemplated by ATC, the entire project would be declared a land condominium pursuant to the Maryland Condominium Act.

See Maryland Code, (1974, 2003 ¹⁰⁰ Repl.Vol.), § 11-101, et seq. of the Real Property Article. The “units” of ATC’s land condominium were a mixture of office, retail, and residential parcels. 2 The Development also had one additional and unusual feature—the Declaration and plat showed a nominal common element of only one square foot. Areas that would typically be included in a common area were instead designated as the “Common Facilities Parcel.” 3 ATC retained ownership of the Common Facilities Parcel even after the other parcels were sold, and planned to pay for its upkeep by collecting annual common area maintenance (“CAM”) fees from each of the parcel owners. This case deals with “Parcel 14” and “Parcel 15,” residential parcels at the western end of the development, abutting Riva Road.

As with the other residential parcels, ATC sought a residential developer to purchase these parcels and construct residential towers and parking garages. Petitioner Hovnanian Land Investment Group, LLC (“Hovnanian”), 4 a residential developer who, on March 3, 2005, entered into a Purchase and Development Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with HTC for Parcels 14 and 15. Under the Purchase Agreement, Hovnanian was to construct three residential towers on the properties, containing 550 residential units, each with a minimum of 1,300 net useable square feet. Section 14 of the Purchase Agreement, titled “Seller’s Undertakings,” required ATC to meet certain obligations prior to the closing.

Relevant here, Section 14(d) addressed the funding of common area maintenance (“CAM”): ¹⁰¹ ... [ATC] shall be solely responsible for ... recording a declaration (the “Declaration”) for the maintenance of the common areas of the Development[ 5 ]....The Declaration ... shall provide annual assessments against the office and retail portions of the Development for the purpose of providing funds for the maintenance of the office and retail buildings and associated common areas.... The Declaration ... shall also provide that each owner of a condominium unit shall pay an annual fee of [$1,200], which annual fee shall increase at the rate of three percent (3%) per annum to be calculated on a per diem basis. (Emphasis added). 6 The Purchase Agreement thus required ATC to establish predetermined CAM fees for Hovnanian’s parcel, and provide CAM funding for the other parcels. The Purchase Agreement stated that Hovnanian’s obligation to go to closing “shall be conditioned upon completion” of the conditions precedent, and gave Hovnanian certain remedies in case ATC failed to meet them: If [ATC] is unable or unwilling to complete or fulfill its obligations as set forth ... for the parcels to be closed upon, [Hovnanian] may at its option (i) close on said parcels to be closed upon notwithstanding [ATC’s] failure but without waiving [ATC’s] obligations to perform hereunder, or (ii) delay the applicable Closing until after [ATC] has satisfied its obligations, or (iii) terminate this Agreement and have its Deposit returned!.] The Purchase Agreement also contained a non-waiver clause: No change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by Purchaser ¹⁰² and Seller.

No purported or alleged waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be binding or effective unless in writing and signed by the party against whom it is sought to be enforced. 2. The Declaration and Dispute over Common Area Maintenance Funding As described above, the Purchase Agreement required ATC to record a declaration providing for (1) a $1,200 annual CAM fee for residential unit holders and (2) annual assessments against the other parcel owners in the development. ATC drafted the provision for Common Area Maintenance in Section 10.2.4 of the Declaration, which read as follows: Payment of Common Area Maintenance Costs. While this Towne Centre Declaration is in effect, some or all Parcel Owners, Tier 2 Councils, Tier 2 Owners and/or other Persons shall periodically pay to [ATC] respective shares of the Common Area Maintenance Costs (each of which payments required to be made by any Person is referred to herein as a CAM charge) pursuant to one or more Recorded Supplemental Agreements between [ATC] and one or more of those Persons. [ATC] shall be responsible for payment of the rest of the Common Area Maintenance Costs, which [ATC] shall allocate among the parts of the Retail Component (except for the Target Parcel 11 Unit).[ 7 ] The Declaration thus addressed the CAM funding responsibilities of other parcels with a placeholder provision, which prom ¹⁰³ ised future agreements with parcel owners in lieu of establishing, in the Declaration, a detailed funding mechanism in the Declaration. 8 On May 11, 2006, ATC first provided Hovnanian with a draft of the Declaration, and a proposed Supplemental Agreement between Hovnanian and ATC.

The draft Declaration indicated that CAM funding details would be handled in Supplemental Agreements with the parcel owners, and the draft Supplemental Agreement for Hovnanian included such a provision. Counsel for Hovnanian responded on July 20, 2006, with a memo including questions and comments. Relevant here, Hovnanian posed four questions: 1) If Target stops paying its annual fees, what are the remedies? Who is authorized to pursue them?

What are obligations of developer to pursue them? 2) Is developer also obligated to pay fees based upon square footage it owns or controls? If developer stops paying for any reason, what are the remedies and who is authorized to pursue them? 3) Why does 10.2.4 provide that “some” Parcel Owners etc shall pay share of CAM and not all? Who will not be obligated to pay? 5) Section 10 of Supplemental Agreement provides for recordation of Memorandum and not the Supplemental Agreement. Why?

Aren’t purchasers of residential units entitled to see the entire Supplemental Agreement since they are paying these monthly, annual fees beginning at $1200 per year and with 3% increases annually? Hovnanian also provided comments regarding the draft Supplemental Agreement, stating: “[Hovnanian] wants the fees to ¹⁰⁴ be payable by unit owners and not by [Hovnanian,]” and that “it must be clear that each unit owner must pay the annual fees directly to [ATC].” Hovnanian thus flagged the CAM fees provision of the Declaration for further discussion. On July 25, 2006, counsel for ATC responded to Hovnanian’s questions, as follows: 1) This project has been structured as though it were a traditional mixed-use center, with parcel sales to the residential developers. The residential developers are limited to a fixed CAM charge and the Developer is obligated to maintain the Common Facilities Parcel, which are all the streets and common parking areas.

The Developer can pass those charges on to its retail tenants, or pay for them out of its pocket, but it is still obligated to maintain [the Common Facilities Parcel] in accordance with the documents. If Target doesn’t pay its fees, the Developer can pursue Target or come up with the extra cash itself. The Developer has the same choice if the residential parcels don’t pay their fees. 2) See # 1 but, in addition, if the Developer doesn’t maintain the Common Facilities Parcel in accordance with the Declaration, any of the parcel owners can bring an action against it. 3) See # 1. 5) We have no problem recording this. Debbie had indicated that K-Hov might want to divide this charge up differently (with larger units paying larger portions) and we thought that fee would be included in your condominium documents for your parcels but recording the Supplemental Agreement is fine.

With regard to the Supplemental Agreement, ATC merely noted that those issues had been “Discussed.” ATC sent updated drafts of the Declaration to Hovnanian on August 1, 2006, and August 15, 2006. Each of these revisions contained substantially similar provisions regarding the use of Supplemental Agreements. Hovnanian provided ATC comments on the second draft on August 17, 2006. ¹⁰⁵ These comments, addressing a number of issues in the Declaration, did not expressly address 10.2.4 or the specifics of CAM funding. ATC circulated new drafts, with identical CAM sections, on August 28, 2006 and September 14, 2006.

On September 18, 2006, Hovnanian provided detailed comments to the September 14 draft Declaration, including comments on the CAM funding provision. 9 Hovnanian stated, in relevant part: 3. Definition of Common Area Maintenance Costs. The definition seems to exclude real property taxes and fees to the Operator. These costs should be included in the CAM.

If not, then we need to have a clear understanding of this to explain to our client. If this is variable depending on Parcel Owner, then perhaps this should be addressed by Supplemental Agreements if you deem it appropriate, but then the Declaration should so state. We need to understand this issue better. ATC’s counsel responded the same day, stating “Fees to [ATC] are included in CAM and we can add that.

Taxes are not and Section 9.5 says at the end that some parcel owners are required by Supplemental agreements to pay them.” On October 12, 2006, ATC’s counsel stated: In order to stay on our construction schedule at this project, we must file the [Declaration] by the end of this month.... We have received comments from some of you since the last version of the Declaration was circulated and [we] will be incorporating those to the extent we can. If anyone has comments that have not yet been submitted, please get those to us. On October 30, 2006, ATC recorded its “Towne Centre Declaration” (the “Declaration”), and circulated the recorded version to Hovnanian on November 6, 2006.

On November 15, 2006, ATC and Hovnanian amended the Purchase Agreement. This amendment removed Hovnanian’s ¹⁰⁶ obligation to purchase a portion of the property where one of the buildings was to be constructed, reduced the purchase price from $33,184,000 to $22,927,000, and allowed Hovnanian to extend the closing date from November 1, 2007 to February 1, 2008 by paying ATC an extension fee of $100,000. In late 2006, ATC continued its negotiations with the Target Corporation, which was purchasing a large retail parcel in the project. On December 12, 2006, as those negotiations approached a close, counsel for ATC emailed Hovnanian, indicating that the revised Declaration would be recorded on December 20, 2006.

On December 15, 2006, counsel for Hovnanian responded with the following email: Once again, I am amazed at the ability of you and Greg [ ] to balance all of the varying interests in this project. I am submitting the following comments to the above draft.... There are not a lot of comments. It appears that the payment of CAM for each Parcel, including Parcel 15, is going to be dealt with in the Supplemental Agreement.

The remainder of the e-mail addressed Section 10.2.2(b), which is not at issue in this case. 10 ATC delayed the recording of the Amended Declaration until January. It circulated drafts on January 4, January 11, and January 16, 2007. After this last circulation, ATC and ¹⁰⁷ Hovnanian went back and forth regarding certain provisions in the Amended Declaration. On January 17, 2007, Hovnanian’s counsel wrote: ...

On behalf of [Hovnanian] I am providing the following comments regarding the January 4, 2007 version of the Declaration. These comments and questions are not new. We have raised them in the past and we thought that it was agreed that they would be made, but as you will see, we are not certain that the language that now exists addresses the concerns sufficiently. 10.2.4. Payment of the Common Area Maintenance Costs.

As I read Section 10.2.4 it provides, in relevant part, that Tier 2 Owners and/or other Persons shall periodically pay to [ATC] respective shares of the Common Area Maintenance Costs....This language, together with the portion of Section 14d of the original Purchase and Development Agreement that has not been changed by the most recent amendment, has led me to interpret this above language to mean that [ATC] will begin assessing the annual CAM directly from each purchaser of a Tier 2 residential unit when that person settles from the builder[ ] of that Tier 2 residential condominium and will continue to do so per month until the full CAM has been collected (or the prorated amount for that first year). It is not my understanding that [Hovnanian], the Parcel Owner, or the Tier 2 Council of Unit Owners once the Tier 2 residential condominium is created will be doing the collection of the CAM from its future unit owners and remitting the same in lump sums to [ATC]. We need to confirm that [ATC] will pursue the individual Tier 2 unit owners for the annual fee of $1,200[.] The next day, ATC’s counsel replied and stated: ... I believe both of these issues can be dealt with in our Supplemental Agreement with Hovnanian, if need be____ On the [CAM issue], we do have a different understanding and we can talk about that.

It has always been our intention to bill the Association for the total CAM due and ¹⁰⁸ that the Association would collect from its members. It would be a total nightmare for the Towne Centre Council to be billing and chasing each individual condominium owner....We can talk about that more. I’m sure we can both get comfortable with it. We have been in the process of closing with Target since last Thursday and we are concluding today, with the recordation immediately after.

In another email on January 18, ATC reiterated that, because of practical limitations, it wanted to address Hovnanian’s concerns in a Supplemental Agreement: ... That document was signed off by Target, Prudential and Bank of America last Thursday (the day set for the actual closing) and funding happened today based upon it. The title company has the entire package for recording and may be recording it this afternoon. We can’t make any change at this point.

I’m not sure a language change is even necessary on that but, if it is, we can address it in the Supplemental Agreement for your parcel. On January 19, 2007, Hovnanian’s counsel responded: Not a problem. I’m fine with addressing this and our other concerns later (if it is appropriate for the Supplemental Agreement then I am fine with addressing them in that document), but please keep in mind that we have always made it clear that we have never given our final sign off on the recorded document, that we do have outstanding unresolved issues, and that we have only been giving our approval on the changes Target made to this latest draft, which happened very quickly, in an effort to meet your deadlines with Target. Our previous e-mails confirm this understanding but I wanted to confirm this in response to your last email.

Therefore, I hope that you did not expect that any of the changes we may have needed in an amended Declaration made it to the one you are recording now, because they are not included at this point and remain outstanding. ATC’s counsel responded, also on January 19, 2007: ... We honestly feel that the issues you raised that needed to be addressed in the Amended Declaration have been and ¹⁰⁹ that is why we have copied you and Earle on all the redrafts. Both of the other residential developers are OK with the recorded document.

Greg was careful to include revisions we agreed upon at our last meeting. If any issues need to be dealt with, we need to do so in the Supplemental Agreement if possible. Now that Target has closed on their parcel, they will need to approve of any changes to the Declaration, which will be a difficult if not impossible process. The next day, January 20, 2007, Hovnanian’s counsel replied: We were repeatedly told by you and Greg that we would address any of [Hovnanian’s] open issues in an amended Declaration, and I have told the same to my client.

If I did not have that comfort level from you, then I would have protested against recordation prior to my client signing off. I cannot rely on the comfort level of the other residential developers in order to get my client comfortable so I cannot focus on their satisfaction with the document. I’m absolutely fine with addressing our concerns in a Supplemental Agreement if it is possible and if it accurately resolves the concerns. If not, then we will have to amend the Declaration and work through it with Target....

I do not anticipate new problems, but some of our longstanding issues have not been addressed and we absolutely have to have my client’s approval of this document. On January 22, 2007, without further comment from Hovnanian, ATC recorded an Amended and Restated Declaration (the “Amended Declaration”). Over the next year, the project proceeded towards closing, with both parties making preparations. During this time, Hovnanian and ATC frequently communicated, though not specifically with regard to the Declaration’s CAM provisions.

The CAM provisions, apparently, were discussed at an April meeting, after which ATC sent an email discussing collateral ¹¹⁰ CAM fee issues. 11 On April 6, Hovnanian responded, saying only that it “need[ed] to set up a follow-up meeting on other condo doc issues[.]” After this communication, however, the record demonstrates that Hovnanian did not again mention the specifics of 10.2.4 or its use of Supplemental Agreements, in 2007. As they approached the original closing date, November 1, 2007, Hovnanian paid $100,000 to extend that date to February 1, 2008. Yet, even with the delayed closing date, Hovnanian soon realized the extent to which the recent housing collapse had reached the markets. 12 Hovnanian began privately preparing an offer package to sell its interest in the project to another party. These attempts would prove unsuccessful.

Additionally, Hovnanian sought an additional extension and/or a discount from ATC throughout January of 2008. 13 The negotiations began to fall apart in late January, as the parties could not agree on an acceptable extension deal. Throughout these negotiations, Hovnanian referenced market difficulties as the major hangup. For example, the regional president at Hovnanian stated, in an email dated January 3, 2008, that the original purchase price “could work over time with the cooperation of the market but it doesn’t now and unless things drastically and quickly improved, there is almost no discount that would work over the next 6 months.” Simi ¹¹¹ larly, in an email on January 30, 2008, the regional president wrote: Isn’t something better than nothing plus we are still your best chance to get to closing as soon as possible? If the market and financing were available, we would be there.

Do you think there is someone else who is willing to step up in this market and pay our Purchase Price less $4M (portion of our $7M deposit net to you after taxes). After its last efforts to obtain an extension had failed, Hovnanian then turned to the Purchase Agreement and “attempted to ascertain whether all of the conditions precedent to closing were met.” 3. Termination of the Purchase Agreement and Litigation On February 1, 2008, Hovnanian’s president sent a letter to ATC, asserting that ATC had failed to fulfill conditions precedent. The unfulfilled conditions include items contained in the following sections of the Agreement: Section 3(c), (d) and its subsections, (g)(h), Section 4 and Section 14(c) and (d).

On March 3, 2008, ATC responded in a letter asserting that the condition had been complied with, as the Amended Declaration provided for annual assessments through the use of Supplemental Agreements. The letter also asserted that Hovnanian had agreed to deal with the CAM fees in a Supplemental Agreement, a draft of which ATC included with the letter. Hovnanian disagreed, and faxed a letter to ATC the next day declaring that the Purchase Agreement was terminated for a failure to fulfill the conditions precedent. ATC filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, 14 seeking a declaratory judgment that Hovnanian had breached the contract, and other injunctive relief. 15 Hov ¹¹² nanian answered, claiming that its obligations were relieved by ATC’s failure to comply with the condition precedent.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether ATC had complied with the condition precedent regarding Section 14(d) and the CAM maintenance fees. The Circuit Court issued an order on February 24, 2008, granting ATC’s motion for summary judgment on that issue. 16 In its opinion, it held that Section 10.2.4 of the Declaration “strictly complied” with Section 14(d) of the Purchase Agreement: ... In the context of this transaction, the only reasonable reading of § 14(d) is that ATC was required to establish a mechanism for the funding of the office and retail CAM charges, rather than specifying the amount of the assessments in the Declaration. Since parcels would ultimately be sold to a diverse selection of office and retail users ranging from large single users such as Target, to individual boutique stores, logic dictates that the assessments against individual Parcel owners would require a level of customization to reflect the nature and extent of each Parcel’s ultimate use.

Since it may be unrealistic to predict CAM costs into the future, due to changing the maintenance needs and expenses, it is logical that a condominium declaration establish a formula or methodology by which CAM charges can be determined in perpetuity, rather than establish a fixed amount. The court agrees with ATC that the Agreement does not require the Declaration to assess a particular dollar amount against the office and retail portions of the Development .... [and] the court finds that the requirement for assessing the office and retail portions of the Development was met by § 10.2.4 of the [Declaration.] ¹¹³ In an alternative holding, the Court concluded that Hovnanian waived the CAM funding condition through its actions: [Hovnanian’s] waiver went beyond mere silence. In fact, while [Hovnanian], through its counsel, raised issues regarding other portions of the Declaration which are not the basis of any claim of default, it did not complain of those provisions which it now alleges entitled it to terminate the Purchase Agreement. After reviewing drafts of the Declaration which contained the supposedly offending language, [Hovnanian], through its counsel, acknowledged the applicable provisions and their impact, and never objected to these provisions. [Hovnanian] treated the Agreement as valid [from its recording on January 22, 2007] until February 1, 2008, when it became clear that its repeated requests for modification of the Purchase Agreement, or for a further extension to closing, would not be attainable.

After the parties agreed to dismiss the remaining claims, the Circuit Court entered a final judgment on March 12, 2009. Hovnanian filed a timely notice of appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. Before that Court, Hovnanian criticized the Circuit Court’s decision as ignoring the non-waiver clause in the contract. In an unreported opinion, the intermediate appellate court aligned with the Circuit Court, holding that: ...

Hovnanian impliedly agreed to the mechanism by only raising objections not here relevant. It was clear for well over a year before February 1, 2008, that ATC could not strictly comply with section 14d, as Hovnanian now interprets 14d. While later actions by Hovnanian might be equivocal if taken out of context, in context they are unequivocal and support waiver and estoppel. Hovnanian’s conduct supports the conclusion that it waived the non-waiver clause in the Agreement as well as the substantive conditions in Section 14d.

The Court of Special Appeals, determining that Hovnanian had waived the condition, did not reach the question of whether the Declaration strictly complied with the conditions of the ¹¹⁴ Purchase Agreement. Hovnanian then sought certiorari from this Court. DISCUSSION I. Waiver of Conditions Precedent and Non-Waiver Clauses As a threshold issue, we consider Hovnaniaris claim that a party may not waive a contract right through its conduct if the contract contains a “non-waiver” clause. Although Hovnanian casts this issue as “a matter of first impression,” we find ample case law addressing the effect of similar clauses.

This Court’s treatment of non-waiver clauses can be traced back to our decision in Freeman v. Stanbern Const. Co., 205 Md. 71 , 106 A.2d 50 (1954). There, in a dispute between a general contractor and its subcontractor, the trial court excluded testimony regarding an oral modification to the written contract, reasoning that any such modification was impermissible under a contractual requirement that modifications be approved in writing by the general contractor. Id. at 76 , 106 A.2d at 53 .

On appeal, this Court disagreed that the existence of the clause was dispositive: ... The rule has been accepted by the Courts, both State and Federal, that, even though a written contract stipulates that it may not be varied except by an agreement in writing, nevertheless the parties, by a subsequent oral agreement, may modify it by mutual consent. We hold that a subsequent oral modification of a written contract may be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Of course, if the written contract provides that it shall not be varied except by an agreement in writing, it must appear that the parties understood that this clause was waived.

However, such a clause may be waived by implication as well as by express agreement. Id. at 79 , 106 A.2d at 55 . In Freeman , we relied on opinions from two of our country’s most preeminent jurists, Benjamin Cardozo and Oliver Wen ¹¹⁵ dell Holmes, who each addressed similar clauses while on their respective state high courts. Judge Cardozo, writing for the Court of Appeals of New York, resoundingly rejected a party’s attempt to rely on a non-waiver clause: Those who make a contract may unmake it.

The clause which forbids a change may be changed like any other. The prohibition of oral waiver may itself be waived. * * * What is excluded by one act is restored by another. * * * Whenever two men contract, no limitation self-imposed can destroy their power to contract again. Beatty v. Guggenheim Exploration Co., 225 N.Y. 380 , 122 N.E. 378, 381 (1919). We also relied on then-Judge Holmes’ opinion in Bartlett v. Stanchfield, 148 Mass. 394 , 19 N.E. 549, 550 (1889), where he reasoned: Attempts of parties to tie up by contract their freedom of dealing with each other are futile.

The contract is a fact to be taken into account in interpreting the subsequent conduct of the plaintiff and the defendant, no doubt. But it cannot be assumed, as a matter of law, that the contract governed all that was done until it was renounced in so many words, because the parties had a right to renounce it in any way and by any mode of expression they saw fit. They could substitute a new oral contract by conduct and intimation, as well as by express words. Freeman clearly instructs us that Maryland and other courts will readily look past a non-modification clause, and focus on the actions of the parties.

Ten years later, this Court considered, specifically, whether a party could impliedly waive a condition precedent in a contract that, under the statute of frauds, was required to be written. See Bio-Ramo Drug Co. v. Abrams, 229 Md. 494, 499 , 184 A.2d 831, 833-35 (1962). In Bio-Ramo, a lease provided the tenant with an option to purchase the property, subject to a strict written notice requirement. The landlord orally agreed to the tenant’s request to purchase the property, but the tenant did not provide written notice as required by the lease.

Before this Court, the landlord argued that the ¹¹⁶ writing requirement was dispositive. We disagreed, and remanded to the trial court to determine whether waiver occurred. To support our holding, we quoted 2 Corbin, Contracts, § 310, which reads: If the plaintiff has failed to perform some condition precedent (express, implied, or constructive) to the defendant’s duty under the written contract, and that failure was caused by the defendant himself, can the plaintiff get judgment on the written contract without performing the condition? The answer is clearly yes; and the cases generally support the answer * * *.

This assumes that the nonperformance of the condition was not caused by the plaintiffs own inability to perform, and that but for the defendant’s request, agreement, or other conduct, the plaintiff would have performed the condition. If the defendant later repudiates or otherwise breaks the contract, he cannot use the plaintiffs failure to perform on time as a defense. * * * The foregoing principles apply even where the plaintiffs non-performance of a condition was caused by an oral agreement substituting something else. This is true even though the oral agreement is itself within the statute and unenforceable, and even though it was the plaintiff and not the defendant who proposed the substitution. If the plaintiff would have performed the condition but for the oral agreement with the defendant, he can enforce the written contract. .

Id. at 500-01, 184 A.2d at 834 . See also id. (“The statement in 4 Williston, Contracts (3d ed.), § 595, and the Restatement, Contracts, § 224, are to the same effect.”). Bio-Ramo demonstrates that neither contractual writing requirements nor the statute of frauds prevent oral or implied waiver in all circumstances.

This Court next examined an attempt to prohibit modification to a contract by conduct in Pumphrey v. Pelton, 250 Md. 662 , 245