Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006

'oral'

A 'modification' can affect the main text of an agreement. An
'amendment' generally does not affect the main text. but rather adds
other conditions or rights.

I can't offer any advice on the technical legal meanings of these
words, but here's my feeling about their everyday use.

An "understanding" usually refers to something that hasn't been
formally laid out in any sort of binding form, but exists tacitly and
relies on the goodwill of the parties involved.

An "arrangement" is usually something ongoing. It may be informal but
doesn't necessarily have to be so. For example, if you have an
overdraft "arrangement" with your bank then you can draw on the
overdraft as and when it suits you.

"Modification" and "amendment" are to me synonymous in the context you
give. I cannot identify any clear difference between the two. (In other
contexts there is a difference though. For example, if the thing being
altered is a physical object then "modification" is much more likely
than "amendment".)

Be extremely wary of interpreting legal language by ordinary usage
standards (meaning take anything anyone here says with great caution,
unless that person is a practicing attorney in your jurisdiction).  The
law, like any profession or trade, has its own jargon, and phrases can
acquire special meanings that differ from or are wider or narrower in
scope than their everyday dictionary meanings.

That said, I (*not* an attorney) would venture that an "agreement" is a
contract, that is, a legally binding set of reciprocal promises; there
are various criteria that define a binding contract, but I will not
here enumerate them.  In most jurisdictions, a contract may be written
or oral, with each equally binding; but, obviously, an oral contract is
*very* difficult to prove, as are its individual terms.

An understanding or arrangement would most likely be some meeting of
minds on reciprocal actions that does not, for one or another reason,
rise to the status of being a legally binding contract, being without
at least one and possibly several of the points that make a set of
reciprocal promises legally binding (most commonly, the lack is of
definiteness).

As to distinguishing a modification from an amendment, I cannot see any
way.  If, as I surmise, an "agreement" is a binding contract, that
contract will (or should) set forth within it the bases on which it can
validly be altered; if it does not, a similarly binding new agreement
to modify the old would be wanted.