Inc., 201 N.C. App. 726, 689 S.E.2d 601, 2010 WL 10963 at *3-4 (2010) (unpublished) (applying common law principles of contract law, such as offer and acceptance, to a claim filed under the Workers’ Compensation Act). This Court has held that a lapse in employment and subsequent rehiring via a “last act” made in North Carolina created a contract that was “made” in North Carolina for jurisdictional purposes under Section 97-36. Baker v. Chizek Transp., Inc., 210 N.C. App. 490, 711 S.E.2d 207, 2011 WL 904271 at *4-5 (2011) (unpublished). Similarly, under the common law of contracts, a modification to the terms of a contract may create a new underlying contract that was “made” in North Carolina. See, e.g., Spartan Leasing Inc. v. Pollard, 101 N.C. App. 450, 457, 400 S.E.2d 476, 480 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Section 97-36 also employs the phrase
holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified holding that an addendum letter was a new contract because it modified a prior lease agreement holding that it was error for the court to enter a modified agreement which materially altered the agreement reached by the parties holding no enforceable contract where letter specified it was a letter of interest only and is subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement  holding contract to be a mineral lease