- 22 -
requiring quarterly payments, and neither of the other
trustees testified at trial.
Moreover, unlike the Texas cases, each of which
involves distinct contractual parties with competing
interests, in this case, petitioner acted as both
administrator of the plan, trustee of the plan trust,
and participant-borrower. Petitioner's unilateral failure
to demand payment from himself under the circumstances
presented in this case is not sufficient, by itself, to
evidence mutual assent between two parties to modify the
terms of the notes.
Furthermore, petitioners do not attempt to show at
exactly what point the plan's failure to demand payment
constituted a modification of the loans. Based on the
cases petitioners cite, any modification that might have
occurred presumably would have taken place after sufficient
time passed to create a "regular course of dealing." Even
if we accept petitioners' argument that the notes were
modified by a regular course of dealing, petitioners have
not shown any factual basis on which to find that the
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011