Editing Statute of frauds (section)

===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>