commission. Generally, where the parties acknowledge creation of a contract and the disagreement concerns their varying understandings about certain terms, such questions are properly submitted to a jury. See, e.g., Pan American Bancshares, Inc. v. Trask, 278 So.2d 313, 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The next issue is whether and how the parties to an oral contract can orally modify it. It is well established that the parties to a contract can discharge or modify the contract, however made or evidenced, through a subsequent agreement. Carolina Metal Prods. Corp. v. Larson, 389 F.2d 490 (5th Cir.1968); 17A Am. Jur.2d Contracts § 513 (1991) (stating that a contract may be superseded or modified by another contract); cf. H.I. Resorts, Inc. v. Touchton, 337 So.2d 854, 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (<HOLDING>); 7 Fla. Jur.2d Brokers § 55 (1997) (stating
holding that when a contract is partially parol and partially written parol evidence may prove the parol terms holding that enforcement of alleged oral representations made prior to execution of written contract was barred by the parol evidence rule and the explicit integration clause holding the parol evidence rule presumes finality with respect to the written terms of the agreement only and does not prevent consideration of parol evidence concerning the duration of contract holding that the arbitration agreement in a written contract did not apply to a dispute arising from a subsequent oral agreement which did not incorporate the arbitration clause from the written contract holding that the parol evidence rule did not bar introduction of evidence of a subsequent oral contract concerning the brokers right to a commission and modifying the written agreement