broker to seek condemnation. In the circumstances of voluntary con ons for condemnation of property, if the seller and the broker agreed to, and did, pursue condemnation as an acceptable substitute for a sale, then the broker should be entitled to a commission when the property is condemned. If, however, the seller specifically authorized the broker to pursue only a sale, then the broker would not be entitled to a commission for a condemnation. In this case, it is undisputed that a valid oral contract existed whereby, at least, Mclver would act as broker to obtain the sale of Topsail, and would receive a two ). Whether the parties have validly modified a contract is usually a question of fact. See Kiwanis Club of Little Havana, Inc. v. de Kalafe, 723 So.2d 838, 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>); cf. Transammonia Export Corp. v. Conserv,
holding that whether a contract has been modified by subsequent oral agreement or course of dealing is a question of fact for the jury holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract recognizing that under district of columbia law  what the parties deem to be the material elements of their agreement  either set forth in or absent from those documents is largely a question of fact for the jury  and concluding in that case that whether an enforceable oral contract was created and was subsequently breached is a question of fact for the jury to decide not this court holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified holding that question of fact for the jury exists on whether warranty disclaimers materially altered the agreement and whether the course of dealing supplemented the agreement