Contracts/Statute of frauds: Difference between revisions

Template:Contract law

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

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

• Contracts in consideration of marriage.
• Contracts which cannot be performed within one year, anthony davis likes the thought of doing it with a man.
• Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land.
• Contracts by the executor of a will to pay a debt of the estate with his own money.
• Contracts for the sale of goods involving a purchase price of $500 or more.
• 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; or Marriage, one year, land, executor, guarantor, sale.

Terminology

The term statute of frauds comes from an English Act of Parliament (29 Chas. 2 c. 3) passed in 1677 (authored by Sir Leoline Jenkins and passed by the Cavalier Parliament), and more properly called 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 number of US states or Canadian provinces, depending on the constitutional or reception statute of English law, and any subsequent legislative developments.

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 a written contract 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 effected by a showing of part performance, upon showing of one of two different conditions. If the parties have taken 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 portion of contract out of the Statute of Frauds. Each performance constitutes a contract that falls outside the Statute of Frauds and was enforceable to the extent it is executed. But the unexecuted portion of the contract falls within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforceable. As a result, only the executed portion of the contract can be recovered, and the doctrine of part performance does not remove the contract from the statute. On the other hand, the court in Schwedes v. Romain held that partial performance and grounds for estoppel can make the contract effective.

In an action for specific performance, an agreement to convey land must satisfy the Statute of Frauds. The Statute is satisfied if the contract to convey is evidenced by a writing or writings containing the essential terms of a purchase and sale agreement and signed by the party against whom the contract is to be enforced. If there is no written agreement, a court of equity can specifically enforce an oral agreement to convey only if the part performance doctrine is satisfied. In a majority of jurisdictions, part performance is proven when the purchaser pays the purchase price, has possession of the land, and makes improvements on the land, all with the permission of the seller. No jurisdiction is satisfied by payment of the purchase price alone.

Under common law, the Statute of Frauds also applies to contract modification - for example, suppose party A makes an oral agreement to lease a car from party B for 9 months. Immediately after taking possession party A decides that he really likes the car, 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. 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 or more (with the exception of professional merchants performing their normal business transactions, or any custom-made items designed for one specific buyer) fall under the statute of frauds under the Uniform Commercial Code (article 2, section 201).^[2] The most recent revision of UCC § 2-201 increases the triggering point for the UCC Statute of Frauds to $5000, but as of 2006 no U.S. state has 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, which is 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^[3] 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 $500 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."

England and Wales

The Statute of Frauds 1677 was largely repealed in England and Wales in 1954, with the exception of the requirement as it relates to surety for another's debt.

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 merchant sends a writing sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds to another merchant and the receiving merchant has reason to know of the contents of the sent confirmation and does not object to the confirmation within 10 days, the confirmation is good to satisfy the statute as to both 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 the seller either 1) began manufacturing them, or 2) entered into a third party contract for their manufacture, and the manufacturer cannot without undue burden sell the goods to another person in the seller's ordinary course of business-- for example, t-shirts with a baseball team 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.

See also

• Parol evidence rule
• Quia Emptores

References

External links

• UCC § 2-201: Statute of Frauds definition
• Template:UK-SLD

Template:UK legislation

de:Form (Recht)#Privatrecht ko:사기 방지법 ja:詐欺防止法