Statute of frauds


The statute of frauds refers to the requirement that certain kinds of contracts be made in writing and signed.

Traditionally, the statute of frauds requires a writing signed by the defendant in the following circumstances:




Contracts in consideration of marriage.




Contracts which cannot be performed within one year.




Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land.




Contracts by the executor of a will to pay a debt of the estate with their own money.




Contracts for the sale of goods above a certain value.




Contracts in which one party becomes a surety (acts as guarantor) for another party's debt or other obligation.




This can be remembered by the mnemonic "MY LEGS": Marriage, one year, land, executor, goods, surety.







Terminology

The term statute of frauds comes from an English Act of Parliament (29 Chas. 2 c. 3) passed in 1677, and more properly called the An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries.




[1] Many common law jurisdictions have made similar statutory provisions, while a number of civil law jurisdictions have equivalent legislation incorporated into their civil codes.The original English statute itself may still be in effect in a numberof US states or Canadian provinces, depending on the constitutional or statutory reception of English law, and any subsequent legislative developments.




Law students often remember the circumstances for which a written contract is required by the mnemonic"MYLEGS" (marriage, year, land, executor, goods, surety); however, thistraditional listing will vary according to the law of the jurisdictionconcerned.




Raising the defense

A defendant in a "MYLEGS" case who wishes to use the Statute as a defense must raise the Statute in a timely manner.




The burden of proving that awritten contract exists only comes into play when a Statute of Fraudsdefense is raised by the defendant. A defendant who admits theexistence of the contract in his pleadings, under oath in a deposition or affidavit, or at trial, may not use the defense.




A statute of frauds defense may also be effected by a showing of part performance,upon showing of one of two different conditions.




If the parties havetaken action in reliance on the agreement, as in the case Riley v. Capital Airlines, Inc.the court held that part performance does not take an executory portionof contract out of the Statute of Frauds.




Each performance constitutesa contract that falls outside the Statute of Frauds and was enforceableto the extent it is executed.




But the unexecuted portion of thecontract falls within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforceable. As aresult, only the executed portion of the contract can be recovered, andthe doctrine of part performance does not remove the contract from thestatute.




On the other hand, the court in Schwedes v. Romain held that partial performance and grounds for estoppel can make the contract effective.




In real estate sales, if a buyer takes possession by occupying the property, most courts will enforce thecontract. Also, the Statute of Frauds will be suspended if the buyer has made permanent improvements to the property or rendered partial orfull payment. In this situation a court may uphold the contract despitea violation of the statute of frauds because the parties' subsequentactions are evidence that a contract existed. Courts are wary ofparties misusing the statute of frauds as a "get out of jail free card" in breach of contract actions.




Under common law,the Statute of Frauds also applies to contract modification - forexample, suppose party A makes an oral agreement to lease a car fromparty B for 9 months.




Immediately after taking possession party Adecides that he really likes the car, and makes an oral offer to partyB to extend the term of the lease by 6 months. Although neither agreement alone comes under the Statute of Frauds, the extension modifies the original contract to make it a 15-month lease, therebybringing it under the Statute. In practice, this works in reverse aswell - an agreement to reduce the lease from 15 months to 9 monthswould not require a writing. However, almost all jurisdictions have enacted statutes that require a writing in such situations.




The Uniform Commercial Code abrogated this requirement for contract modification, discussed below.







Uniform Commercial Code




In the United States, contracts for the sale of goods where the price equals $500.00 or more (with the exception ofprofessional merchants performing their normal business transactions,or any custom-made items designed for one specific buyer) fall underthe statute of frauds under the Uniform Commercial Code (article 2, section 201) [1].The most recent revision of UCC § 2-201 increases the triggering pointfor the UCC Statute of Frauds to $5,000, but as of 2006 no U.S. statehas adopted revised Section 201.




The application of the statute of frauds to dealings between merchants has been modified by provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, whichis a statute that has been enacted at least in part by every state (Louisiana has enacted all of the UCC except for Article 2, as it prefers to maintain its civil law tradition governing the sale of goods). Uniform Commercial Code § 1-206 [2] sets out a "catch-all" statute of frauds for personal property not covered by any other specific law, stating that a contract for thesale of such property where the purchase price exceeds $500.00 is notenforceable unless memorialized by a signed writing. This section,however, is rarely invoked in litigation.




Interestingly, with respect to securitiestransactions, the Uniform Commercial Code (section 8-113) has abrogated the statute of frauds. The drafters of the most recent revisioncommented that "with the increasing use of electronic means ofcommunication, the statute of frauds is unsuited to the realities ofthe securities business."







Exceptions




An agreement may be enforced even if it does not comply with the statute of frauds in the following situations:




Merchant Confirmation Rule, under the UCC. If one merchantsends a writing sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds to anothermerchant, the merchant has reason to know of the contents of the sentconfirmation and the receiver does not object to the confirmationwithin 10 days, the confirmation is good to satisfy the statute as toboth parties.




Admission of the existence of a contract by the defendant under oath,




Part Performance of the contract. The agreement is enforceable up to the amount already paid, delivered, etc.




The goods were specially manufactured for the buyer and theseller either 1) began manufacturing them, or 2) entered into a thirdparty contract for their manufacture, and the manufacturer cannotwithout undue burden sell the goods to another person in the seller'sordinary course of business-- for example, t-shirts with a baseballteam logo or wall-to-wall carpeting for an odd-sized room.



Promissory Estoppel can be applied when the charging party detrimentally relies on the otherwise unenforceable contract.




taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Frauds




also on http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-201




and http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Statute+of+frauds&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&TYPE=QS&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=1518462&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0




Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828 http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Statute+of+frauds&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&TYPE=QS&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=1029945&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0