“While it is assumed that the parties` provision provides a more straightforward basis than the statute for requesting an amendment, it does not alone require that the provision be ignored. In the absence of negative public policy considerations, the parties may facilitate the obtaining of an amendment by agreeing to additional reasons, but their provisions cannot remove the power of the court to change a spant price on the basis of ORS 107.135. Although a court has no obligation to accept the parties` agreements on the circumstances, the court`s decision was appropriate because the agreement is neither unfair nor “inconsistent with the legal powers of the court.” In their new agreement, the parties to Feves agreed that the provisions of the judgment will be amended in several details, including the removal of the spouting sentence taking into account cash compensation. The agreement was not submitted for Tribunal approval. In 1951, the applicant requested an amendment to the original judgment and requested that sped assistance be increased to $200 per month. The defendant husband sought the application of the 1948 agreement. The court changed the sped assistance to $100 per month and the accused appealed. We have recognized, in other contexts, that the parties must not agree on the power that a court does not have. See Taylor/Cf.
McCollom, 153 Or App 670, 684, 958 P2d 207 (1998) (“Private parties cannot impose by private agreement [to the Court of Appeal] or require that it not be granted by law”). “When a district court is tried for internal relations, it has only that full power, which has been conferred by law.” Spady v. Graves, 307 Gold 483, 488, 770 P2d 53 (1989). Since this principle applies here, regardless of the agreement of the parties, it is the court that must enforce this agreement and cannot exceed its legal power. In short, the MSA cannot delegate to the court any power that expressly retains ORS 107.135 (6).