The sources the majority cites for the contrary position do not offer much support. Corbin's treatise on contracts views § 2-209(2) as a regrettable inroad on the flexible construction of contracts. 6 Corbin, Contracts § 1295 at 211-12 (1962). The word "reliance" does appear in Corbin's discussion, but I read it as a reference to § 2-209(5). Corbin's position is that § 2-209(4) and (5) should prevent § 2-209(2) from doing "serious damage;" the majority inserts a reliance requirement in §2-209(4) to prevent what it sees as potentially serious damage to § 2-209(2). Farnsworth, like Corbin, is hostile to §2-209(2). He opines: "It would be possible to give an expansive meaning to the term waiver in these provisions and thereby reach results similar to those reached in cases decided under the common law rule. The clause, then, would be effective only if there had been no reliance." Contracts 476-77 (1982) (emphasis in original). This does not look like a proposal to make waiver depend on reliance; it is a proposal to make "the clause" -- the modification-only-in-writing clause -- effective only if there has been reliance. Eisler would like to use reliance as part of a waiver because she wants to change § 2-209. She thinks that oral modifications of any contract should require consideration, despite § 2-209(1), and a reliance rule is a step in that direction. 58 Wash. U.L.Q. at 280-81, 300-01.