Editing Statute of frauds (section)

== By jurisdiction ==

===Canada===
The Statute of Frauds recites that it was enacted for the ". . . prevention of many fraudulent practices which are commonly endeavored to be upheld by perjury . . .". The mischief arising from claimants asserting oral agreements was to be avoided by requiring that certain contracts be evidenced by "some memorandum or note thereof . . . in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith . . .". Contracts respecting land "created by livery and seisen only or by parole" would not be enforced absent such a writing.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/realpropertylaw00fowlgoog |page=[https://archive.org/details/realpropertylaw00fowlgoog/page/n871 802] |quote=statute of frauds seisen livery. |title=The Real Property Law of the State of New York: Being Chapter Fifty of the Consolidated Laws (passed February 17, 1909 ; Chapter 52, Laws of 1909) and All the Amendments Thereto |last=Fowler |first=Robert Ludlow |publisher=Baker, Voorhis & Company |year=1909 |location=New York |language=en}}</ref>{{Citation needed|reason=The citation provided, while otherwise on point, relates to New York law while this section is about Canadian law|date=May 2019}}

It quickly became apparent to the common law judges that the Statute might itself become an instrument of fraud (or at least injustice) if it was strictly enforced with respect to contracts that were wholly or partly performed.<ref>{{cite web |title=Hill v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (1997) |url=http://beta.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii401/1997canlii401.html |website=CanLII |publisher=lexum|access-date=4 September 2017}}</ref>

The courts developed the concept of "part performance" as an exception. If a contract concerning land was partly performed, that could displace the need for a note or memorandum in writing signed by the party to be charged.

It was one thing to create an exception that displaced the need for a memorandum in writing, but something else to completely nullify the Statute's operation. The thrust of the Statute was that contracts concerning land could not be proved by parol evidence alone. Thus, part performance might be an exception, but it could not, in effect, mean that the underlying contract could be proven by parol evidence. In developing the "part performance" exception, a balancing of the competing considerations was required. An important factor in the case law became that the part performance must be "unequivocally" related to the alleged contract.<ref>Deglman v Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada and Constantineau, [1954] S.C.R. 725 https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2738/index.do</ref>

===Ireland===
The Statute of Frauds, sub-titled "An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries", was passed in 1695 in Ireland.<ref name=ireland>{{cite web |title=Statute of Frauds 1695 - An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1695/act/12/enacted/en/html |website=eISB |publisher=Government of Ireland|access-date=4 September 2017}}</ref> The statute took effect "from and after the feast day of the [[Nativity of John the Baptist|nativity of St. John Baptist]] [24 June], which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred ninety-six",<ref name=ireland /> and is one of the few pre-Independence laws that survived the [[Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Act 2005]] and the [[Statute Law Revision Act 2007]]. It remains largely in force today.

Some effects of the law have been softened by equity, for example the requirement that all contracts for sale of land be evidenced in writing can be circumvented by reliance on the doctrine of part performance.

===United Kingdom===

====England and Wales====
{{See also|Formalities in English law}}
{{Infobox UK legislation
| short_title           = Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856{{efn|Section 26.}}
| type                  = Act
| parliament            = Parliament of the United Kingdom
| long_title            = An Act to amend the Laws of England and Ireland affecting Trade and Commerce.
| year                  = 1856
| citation              = [[19 & 20 Vict.]] c. 97
| introduced_commons    = 
| introduced_lords      = 
| territorial_extent    = {{ubli|[[England and Wales]]|[[Ireland]]}}{{efn|Section 27.}}
| royal_assent          = 29 July 1856
| commencement          = 29 July 1856{{efn|The [[Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793]].}}
| expiry_date           = 
| repeal_date           = 
| amends                = 
| replaces              = 
| amendments            = [[Bills of Exchange Act 1882]]
| repealing_legislation = 
| related_legislation   = 
| status                = Amended
| original_text         = https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/19-20/97/enacted
| revised_text          = https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/19-20/97
| use_new_UK-LEG        = yes
| UK-LEG_title          = Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856
| collapsed             = yes
}}
The [[Statute of Frauds]], dating from 1677,{{efn|This [[short title]] was given by the [[Short Titles Act 1896]]. It is written here as printed in "The Public General Acts, 1896", HMSO, 1896.}} was largely repealed in England and Wales by the [[Law Reform (Enforcement of Contracts) Act 1954]] ([[2 & 3 Eliz. 2]]. c. 34). The only provision of it extant is part of Section&nbsp;4<ref>{{cite web |title=Statute of Frauds (1677), Sec. IV |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/29/3/section/IV |website=legislation.gov.uk |publisher=The National Archives|access-date=4 September 2017}}</ref> which means that contracts of guarantee ([[surety]] for another's debt) are unenforceable unless evidenced in writing. This requirement is clarified by section 3 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856 ([[19 & 20 Vict.]] c. 97),<ref name=mlaa1856s3>{{cite web |title=Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856, Sec. 3 |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/19-20/97/section/3 |website=legislation.gov.uk |publisher=The National Archives|access-date=4 September 2017}}</ref> dated 29 July 1856, which provides that the [[consideration (law)|consideration]] for the guarantee need not appear in writing or require any necessary inference from a written document.<ref name=mlaa1856s3/>

Section 6<ref>{{cite web |title=Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828, Sec. 6 |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo4/9/14/section/6 |website=legislation.gov.uk |publisher=The National Archive|access-date=4 September 2017}}</ref> of the [[Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828]]{{efn|This [[short title]] was given by the [[Short Titles Act 1896]]}} ([[9 Geo. 4]]. c .14) (commonly known as '''[[Charles Abbott, 1st Baron Tenterden|Lord Tenterden]]'s Act''')<ref>Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, 16th Edition, 1989, Sweet and Maxwell, paragraph 18-41, at page 1036</ref> was enacted to prevent Section 4 being circumvented by bringing an action against a verbal guarantor for the [[tort of deceit]] (the tort in ''Freeman v. Palsey'').<ref>(1789) 3[[Term Reports|TR]] 51</ref> A common summary of the law is "a verbal guarantee (for a debt) isn't worth the paper it is written on".{{cn|date=April 2022}}

Provisions in section 4 as to formalities for contracts for the sale of land were repealed by Schedule 7 to the [[Law of Property Act 1925]] ([[15 & 16 Geo. 5]]. c. 20), however the requirement that contracts for the sale of land be evidenced in writing was maintained by section 40 of that Act,<ref>{{cite web |title=Law of Property Act 1925, Sec. 40 |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/40/enacted |website=legislation.gov.uk |publisher=National Archive|access-date=4 September 2017}}</ref> subsequently replaced by section 2 of the [[Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989]] (c. 34).<ref>{{cite web |title=Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Sec. 2 |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/2 |website=legislation.co.uk |publisher=The National Archive|access-date=4 September 2017}}</ref>

====Scotland====
Section 6 of the [[Mercantile Law Amendment Act Scotland 1856]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Mercantile Law Amendment Act Scotland 1856, c. 60, s. VI |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/19-20/60/section/VI/enacted |website=Legislation.gov.uk |publisher=The National Archives}}</ref> was derived from those parts of section 4 of the Statute of Frauds (1677) which relate to contracts of guarantee and from section 6 of the [[Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828]].

It was repealed on 1 August 1995<ref>{{cite web |title=Mercantile Law Amendment Act Scotland 1856 |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/19-20/60/section/6 |website=legislation.gov.uk |publisher=The National Archive|access-date=4 September 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/7/section/15 |website=legislation.gov.uk |publisher=The National Archive|access-date=4 September 2017}}</ref> by the [[Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995]], sections 14(2)<ref>{{cite web |title=Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995, Sec. 14 |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/7/section/14 |website=legislation.gov.uk |publisher=The National Archive|access-date=4 September 2017}}</ref> and Schedule 5<ref>{{cite web |title=Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995, Schedule 5 |url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/7/schedule/5 |website=legislation.gov.uk |publisher=The National Archive|access-date=4 September 2017}}</ref> (with ss. 9(3)(5)(7), 13, 14(3)).

===United States===

In the United States, for contracts for the sale of goods that fall under the [[Uniform Commercial Code]], additional exceptions may apply:
:* '''Admission''' of the existence of a contract by the defendant under oath.<ref>U.C.C. 2-201(3)(b)</ref> However, the contract would only exist for the quantity of goods that were admitted.<ref name="Mann12thEd">{{cite book |last1=Mann |first1=Richard A. |last2=Roberts |first2=Barry S. |date=2015 |title=Business Law and the Regulation of Business |edition=12th |publisher=Cengage Learning |location=Boston, MA |isbn=978-1-305-50955-9 |lccn=2015949710}}</ref> For instance, if the contract was for 100 televisions but the seller admitted in court that it was for 70 televisions, then the contract would exist only for 70 televisions and not the original 100. 
:* '''Merchant confirmation rule'''. 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, even if the confirmation was not signed by the party to be charged.<ref>U.C.C.  2-201(2)</ref>
:* 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 Little League baseball team logo or wall-to-wall carpeting for an odd-sized room.<ref>U.C.C. 2-201(3)(a)</ref>

====State laws====
Every state has a statute that requires certain types of contracts to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. The most common requirements are for contracts that involve the sale or transfer of land, and contracts that cannot be completed within one year.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statute_of_frauds |title=Statute of frauds |author=LII Staff |date=6 August 2007}}</ref> When the statute of frauds applies, a typical statute requires that the writing commemorating the agreement identify the contracting parties, recite the subject matter of the contract so that it is reasonably identifiable, and include the important terms and conditions of agreement.

The statute of frauds in various states comes in three types:
# Those that follow the English statute and provide that "no action shall be brought" on the contract or the contract "shall not be enforced", e.g. the [[Arizona Revised Statutes|Arizona]] statute in Title 44.<ref>Arizona State Legislature, [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/44/00101.htm 44-101. Statute of frauds], accessed 31 October 2022</ref> 
# Those that declare contracts "void".<ref>3 Williston, Contracts §§526, 527 (3d ed. Jager 1960)</ref>
# Those that make the contract "voidable" at the affected party's election.{{efn|e.g. Tex. Gov't Code Sec. 82.065 (a)(b) (contingent fee contract for legal services. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.82.htm#82.065}}

=====Colorado=====
Colorado has a number of different statutes of frauds applicable to different areas of law.<ref>Porter, J. (2017), [https://www.jdporterlaw.com/285-2/statutes-frauds-colorado/ Statutes of Frauds in Colorado], '' J.D. Porter, LLC'', accessed 31 October 2022</ref>

=====Texas=====
In addition to the statute of frauds as conventionally defined,{{efn|The Statute of Frauds generally renders a contract that falls within its purview unenforceable unless an exception applies. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 26.01(a).}} the State of Texas has two rules that govern the litigation process, each of which also has the character of a statute of frauds. One is a rule of general applicability and requires agreements between counsel (or a party, if self-represented) to be in writing to be enforceable. Tex. R. Civ. P. 11.{{efn|Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides as follows: Unless otherwise provided in these rules, no agreement between attorneys or parties touching any suit pending will be enforced unless it be in writing, signed and filed with the papers as part of the record, or unless it be made in open court and entered of record. http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1435952/trcp-all-updated-with-amendments-effective-january-1-2018.pdf}}

Agreements under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11 are called "Rule 11 Agreements" and may either concern settlement or any procedural aspect, such as an agreement regarding scheduling, continuances of trial settings, or discovery matters. The rule has existed since 1840 and has contained the filing requirement since 1877.<ref>See Kennedy v. Hyde, 682 S.W.2d 525, 526 (Tex.1984) (tracing the history of Rule 11); Birdwell v. Cox, 18 Tex. 535, 537 (1857) (providing rationale for in-writing requirement).</ref>  The number designation can cause confusion to non-Texas attorneys because the federal rule 11 is the sanctions rule, whose state-court counterpart has the number designation 13 under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (TRCP).

The other rule that is in the nature of a statute of frauds governs fee agreements with clients when the attorney is to be compensated based on the outcome of the case. The Texas Government Code requires that "[a] contingent fee contract for legal services must be in writing and signed by the attorney and client." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 82.065(a).<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.82.htm#82.065|title = Government Code Chapter 82. Licensing of Attorneys}}</ref>

The classic example is a contingent fee contract in a personal injury case that provides for the claimant's lawyer to receive a certain percentage of the settlement amount (or of the amount awarded by judgment) net of litigation costs, with the percentages typically staggered and increasing based on whether a settlement was obtained before lawsuit is filed, after a lawsuit was filed but before trial, or whether a judgment favorable to the client was obtained through trial. The other scenario is a contingency fee contract based on cost savings achieved (for a client who is a defendant sued for a money judgment) or based on other specified litigation objectives. In those cases, the client will not recover any money from his opponent in the lawsuit, and will have to pay his attorney from his or her own funds in accordance with the terms of the agreement, once the matter is concluded favorably. When the client does not pay, some attorneys then sue the client on the contingency fee contract, or in quantum meruit in the alternative. See, e.g., Shamoun & Norman, LLP v. Hill, 483 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2016), reversed on other grounds by Hill v. Shamoun & Norman, LLP, No. 16-0107 (Tex. April 13, 2018).<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1441370/160107.pdf| title = NO. 16-0107}}</ref> The attorney-vs-client fee-dispute issue generally does not arise in personal injury cases because the settlement funds from the settling party or judgment-debtor are disbursed through the attorney of the party entitled to them, net of costs and the contingency fee component.

====Uniform Commercial Code====
In addition to general statutes of frauds, under Article 2 of the [[Uniform Commercial Code]] (UCC), every state except Louisiana has adopted an additional statute of frauds that relates to the sale of goods. Pursuant to the UCC, contracts for the sale of [[good (economics)|good]]s where the price equals $500 or more fall under the statute of frauds, with the exceptions for professional merchants performing their normal business transactions, and for any custom-made items designed for one specific buyer.<ref>{{UCC|2|201}}</ref>

The application of the statute of frauds to dealings between [[merchant]]s has been modified by provisions of the UCC. There is a "catch-all" provision in the UCC for [[personal property]] not covered by any other specific law,<ref>{{UCC|1|206}}</ref> 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. The most recent UCC revision increases the triggering point for the UCC Statute of Frauds to $5,000, but states have been slow to amend their versions of the statute to increase the trigger point.

For purposes of the UCC, a defendant who admits the existence of the contract in his pleadings, under oath in a [[deposition (law)|deposition]] or affidavit, or at trial, may not use the statute of frauds as a defense. However, a statute of frauds defense may still be available under a state's general statute.

With respect to [[security (finance)|securities]] transactions, the Uniform Commercial Code has abrogated the statute of frauds.<ref>{{UCC|8|319}}</ref> 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."