language approach to interpreting Section 97-36. This Court’s precedent identifies that a modified contract containing the required formation elements is a new contract. See, e.g., NRC Golf Course, LLC v. JMR Golf LLC,_N.C. App._,_, 731 S.E.2d 474, 480 (2012) (“Parties to a contract may agree to change its terms; but the new agreement, to be effective, must contain the elements necessary to the formation of a contract.” (emphasis added)). Like other newly formed contracts, a modified contract may be made in this state. The General Assembly crafted Section 97-36 with a full view that the phrase “employment contract” contemplated both contracts of hire as well as modifications of existing contracts which, by long-standing precedent, are new agreements. See id,.; co (Tex. App. 1983) (<HOLDING>). The Commission held that modification of an
holding maryland had jurisdiction where the original contract of hire was formed in texas but a later contract modification was agreed to in maryland holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur holding that the place of performance governs the legality of the contract and because the contract was to be performed in mexico texas public policy against gambling was not implicated holding that louisiana had jurisdiction over a modified contract of employment where the original employment contract was formed in texas but additional consideration for employment was negotiated in louisiana holding that no modification of the original employment contract occurred when the employer unilaterally issued a new handbook