Opentopia Directory Encyclopedia Tools

Statute of frauds

Encyclopedia : S : ST : STA : Statute of frauds


Contract Law
Part of the common law series
Contract theory
Contract formation
Offer and acceptance  · Mailbox rule
Mirror image rule  · Invitation to treat
Consideration
Defenses against formation
Lack of capacity to contract
Duress  · Undue influence
Illusory promise  · Statute of frauds
Non est factum
Contract interpretation
Parol evidence rule
Contract of adhesion
Integration clause
Contra proferentem
Excuses for non-performance
Mistake  · Misrepresentation
Frustration of purpose  · Impossibility
Unclean hands  · Unconscionability
Illegality  · Accord and satisfaction
Rights of third parties
Privity of contract
Assignment  · Delegation
Novation  · Third party beneficiary
Breach of contract
Anticipatory repudiation  · Cover (law)>Cover
Exclusion clause
Fundamental breach
Remedies
Specific performance
Liquidated damages
Penal damages  · Rescission
Quasi-contractual obligations
Promissory estoppel
Quantum meruit
Subsets: Conflict of law
Commercial law
Other areas of the common law
Tort law  · Property law
Wills and trusts
Criminal law  · Evidence

The statute of frauds refers to a statute (i.e., statutory law), or a provision in a statute, in many common law jurisdictions that requires certain kinds of contracts to be done in writing and to be signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. In a number of civil law jurisdictions, there are similar requirements in their civil codes.

The term statute of frauds comes from an English statutory law (29 Car. II c. 3) passed in 1677 and more properly called the Statute of Frauds and Perjuries.

The writing that the Statute requires is a precondition to maintaining a suit for breach of contract (or other obligation). However, the Statute is used as a defense, which defense is waived if the person against whom enforcement is sought fails to raise in a timely manner. Thus, the burden of showing evidence that such a writing exists only comes into play when a Statute of Frauds defense is raised by the defendant. A defendant who admits the existence 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 defeated by a showing of part performance. If the parties have taken action in reliance on the agreement, a court may uphold the contract despite a violation of the statute of frauds because the parties' subsequent actions verify that a contract existed. Courts are wary of parties misusing the statute of frauds as a "get out of jail free" card in breach of contract actions.

Traditionally, the statute of frauds requires a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought in the following circumstances:

Law students often remember these circumstances by the mnemonic "MYLEGS" (marriage, year, land, executor, goods, surety).

Uniform Commercial Code

In the United States, the application of the statute of frauds to dealings between merchants has been modified by provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is a statute that has been enacted by every state (except Louisiana). Uniform Commercial Code § 1-206 [link] sets out a "catch-all" statute of frauds for personal property not covered by any other specific law, stating that a contract for the sale of such property where the purchase price exceeds $5,000.00 is not enforceable unless memorialized by a signed writing. This section, however, is rarely invoked in litigation.

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

The Statute of Frauds also applies to modified contracts - for example, suppose party A makes an oral agreement to lease a house from party B for 9 months. Immediately after taking possession party A decides that he really likes the place, and makes an oral offer to party B 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, thereby bringing it under the Statute. In practice, this works in reverse as well - an agreement to reduce the lease from 15 months to 9 months would not require a writing. However, almost all jurisdictions have enacted statutes that require a writing in such situations.

See also

External links

 


From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.

Search Titles
0123456789
ABCDEFGHIJ
KLMNOPQRST
UVWXYZ?

E-mail this article to:

Personal Message: