[WRMETTLER]

Penn,
Here is a response that I thought was posted earlier, but was not.

"You want to modify the terms of the agreement based on your action and the landlord's acceptance of your conduct without any sort of formal understanding between the landlord & Tenant.

The Arizona answer:
The question is whether the lease is subject to the statute of frauds. If so, the answer is no - never.
If the lease is not controlled by the statute of frauds, then you can admit evidence that shows a subsequent contract that modifies an existing contract, the lease. under your fact situation, evidence would be your conduct and the landlord's acceptance of your conduct.
Specifically, the landlord has accepted your conduct i.e. the split rent. then the fact question is whether his acceptance of the split payments modified the contract by "ratification". A person can change/accept the terms of a contract by his acts thereby affirming the terms of the new contract. It is difficult to prove, but the court should give you the opportunity to try.

If you came to me with that case, I'd want my entire fee up front. "

With your recent supplement, I think you are confusing two entirely different issues. Implied consent in a DUI case is based on a statutory scheme to punish DUIs for refusal to be tested for a BA level. You refusal to be tested causes 2 things to happen. First, you will still be charged with DUI based on the officer's opinions, etc and any court ordered testing. That is a criminal burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't know if they charge you with a criminal violation for refusing to be tested. In Arizona I could not find any such statute.
Second, the state department of transportation will lift your license for a year or so. That statutory alternative to accepting a test is designed to keep you off the road for 12 months. You have the right to contest that, both at the administrative level and appeal into superior court. I suppose you can challenge that DOT ruling based on a civil burden of proof, preponderance of the evidence.

Arizona has a case identical to your NJ case. The court indicated that a clear consent must be given, and if unavailable due to intoxication or a language barrier, there is no clear consent. "The Legislature recognized this reality, and prescribed a straightforward solution. By providing that "[a] failure to expressly agree to the test . . . is deemed a refusal," the Legislature made clear that the failure to refuse is not agreement — rather, the failure to agree is refusal" If there is a failure to agree to the test, the police do not receive a clear consent, and the police must secure a search warrant if they want the blood. The appeals court reversed the defendant's convictions for DUI and returned the case to the trial court for an implied consent hearing to determine if the case needs to be referred to the ADOT or if consent was given. The standard of the reversal was not based on any burden of proof, but merely whether the trial court abused its discretion.

But, a contract modification has no relationship to your issue, i.e a implied consent situation resulting from a DUI stop.