There are several factors that led to this, primarily:
1) written modifications (with signatures) were allowed
2) under Delaware law, conduct or statements could modify a written contract with a signed writing clause
Clearly in this case statements could not modify this contract (as it was explicitly prohibited). However the court ruled that the IM conversation was not a statement but writing.
The court also decided that since Delaware law allows statements to modify a contract (even one that requires signatures), this also applies to written modifications.
While I agree that it's shocking that a contract can be modified so easily without a signature, that's a law that is already on the books. The only precedent that has been set (as far as I can see, IANAL) is that IMs are writing.
1) written modifications (with signatures) were allowed 2) under Delaware law, conduct or statements could modify a written contract with a signed writing clause
Clearly in this case statements could not modify this contract (as it was explicitly prohibited). However the court ruled that the IM conversation was not a statement but writing.
The court also decided that since Delaware law allows statements to modify a contract (even one that requires signatures), this also applies to written modifications.
While I agree that it's shocking that a contract can be modified so easily without a signature, that's a law that is already on the books. The only precedent that has been set (as far as I can see, IANAL) is that IMs are writing.