In Melcer v. Zuck, 101 N.J. Super. 577, 245 A.2d 61 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 52 N.J. 498, 246 A.2d 456 (1968) the dispute concerned the sale of real property for which the defendant seller could not guarantee ingress and egress by the time of closing. The plaintiff demanded an abatement of the purchase price, but the contract only obligated the seller to return deposit monies and search fees. The trial judge granted specific performance of the contract with the demanded abatement, finding that the contract had been orally modified. The Court reversed because the oral modification of the contract was unenforceable as violative of the statute of frauds.