1339:
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). 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.
916:, the statute of frauds also applies to contract modifications. For example, in an oral agreement for the lease of a car for nine months, immediately after taking possession, the lessor then decides that he really likes the car and makes an oral offer to the lessee to extend the term of the lease by an additional six months. Although neither agreement alone comes under the statute of frauds, the oral extension modifies the original contract to make it a fifteen-month lease (nine months plus the additional six), thereby bringing it under the statute as the contract now exceeds twelve months in duration. In theory, the same principle works in reverse as well, such that an agreement to reduce a lease from fifteen months to nine months would not require a writing. However, many jurisdictions have enacted statutes that require a writing for such situations.
989:, which are agreements that permit the use of real estate by someone who has no property interest in the land, may be created by operation of law rather than by written instrument. This may happen where, for example, a piece of land is partitioned between owners and pre-existing utilities routes or access paths that would otherwise be trespassory over one of the plots is reasonably necessary for enjoyment of the other plot. In such case, the pre-existing use must be apparent and continuous at the time of the partition for an easement to be created by implication. The implied easement constitutes an interest in land that does not require a writing to be enforceable.
1081:
954:, the court held that part performance does not take an executory portion of a 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. However, 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
33:
1018:
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.
1516:
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
1338:
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
908:
can specifically enforce an oral agreement to convey only if the part performance doctrine is satisfied. In most 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.
1334:
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 " contingent fee contract for legal services must be in writing and signed by the attorney
1330:
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
1279:
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
1017:
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
903:
of a contract to convey land, the agreement must be in writing to 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
1271:
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
1260:
of the existence of a contract by the defendant under oath. However, the contract would only exist for the quantity of goods that were admitted. 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
1005:
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
1367:
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. The most recent UCC revision increases the triggering point for the UCC Statute of Frauds to $ 5,000, but
1291:
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. When the statute of frauds
970:
can be applied in many but not all jurisdictions when the charging party detrimentally relies on the otherwise unenforceable contract. In
England and Wales, the circumstances where promissory estoppel may be used to overcome the statute are limited, and some jurisdictions deny this possibility
1326:
In addition to the statute of frauds as conventionally defined, 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
1382:
transactions, the
Uniform Commercial Code 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."
1292:
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.
1331:
requirement since 1877. 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).
978:
as it relates to guarantee or suretyship type contracts: where the promisor's promise to answer for the debt of another is made mainly for the promisor's own economic advantage, then it is a primary promise, and enforceable even without a
1627:
1355:
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.
1009:
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.
1006:"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.
1013:
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.
867:
Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land. This applies not only to a contract to sell land but also to any other contract in which land or an interest in it is disposed, such as the grant of a mortgage or an
1041:
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.
1236:
1225:
294:
864:
Contracts that cannot be performed within one year. However, contracts of indefinite duration do not fall under the statute of frauds regardless of how long the performance actually takes.
1729:
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
1212:. c. 20), however the requirement that contracts for the sale of land be evidenced in writing was maintained by section 40 of that Act, subsequently replaced by section 2 of the
2207:
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).
1026:
The Statute of Frauds, sub-titled "An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries", was passed in 1695 in Ireland. The statute took effect "from and after the feast day of the
1375:
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.
299:
1351:(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
1507:
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).
932:
in a timely manner. The burden of proving that a written contract exists comes into play only when a statute of frauds defense is raised by the defendant.
567:
1213:
672:
3 Historically restricted in common law jurisdictions but generally accepted elsewhere; availability varies between contemporary common law jurisdictions
1167:
for another's debt) are unenforceable unless evidenced in writing. This requirement is clarified by section 3 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856 (
513:
1299:
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
562:
687:
254:
1156:
1030:, which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred ninety-six", and is one of the few pre-Independence laws that survived the
1228:
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
950:
by proving the existence of one of two different conditions. If the parties have taken action in reliance on the agreement, as in the case
764:
be memorialized in writing, signed by the party against whom they are to be enforced, with sufficient content to evidence the contract.
1518:
2367:
501:
1031:
831:. The original English statute itself may still be in effect in a number of Canadian provinces, depending on the constitutional or
1641:
1596:'Charles II, 1677: An Act for prevention of Frauds and Perjuryes.', Statutes of the Realm: volume 5: 1628-80 (1991), pp. 839-42.
1103:
732:
2112:
789:
705:
1229:
1179:
2377:
1188:
1642:"Procedure and Promise: Rethinking the Admissions Exception to the Statute of Frauds under UCC Articles 2, 2A, and 8"
797:
1085:
318:
282:
1371:
For purposes of the UCC, a defendant who admits the existence of the contract in his pleadings, under oath in a
1204:
Provisions in section 4 as to formalities for contracts for the sale of land were repealed by Schedule 7 to the
940:
An agreement may be enforced even if it does not comply with the statute of frauds in the following situations:
1193:) was enacted to prevent Section 4 being circumvented by bringing an action against a verbal guarantor for the
311:
2357:
1750:
1163:. c. 34). The only provision of it extant is part of Section 4 which means that contracts of guarantee (
1035:
1201:). A common summary of the law is "a verbal guarantee (for a debt) isn't worth the paper it is written on".
1138:
1027:
577:
167:
1175:
for the guarantee need not appear in writing or require any necessary inference from a written document.
62:
1972:
1920:
1056:
725:
597:
323:
676:
2217:
1496:
1421:
The list of contracts that fall under a traditional statute of frauds can be remembered by using the
572:
531:
443:
1541:
Drachsler, Leo M. (1958). "The British Statute of Frauds - British Reform and American Experience".
2362:
1710:
Actionstrength Ltd (t/a Vital Resources) v. International Glass Engineering In.Gl.En. SpA & Ors
1519:
http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1435952/trcp-all-updated-with-amendments-effective-january-1-2018.pdf
1300:
1205:
824:
379:
92:
1776:
1733:
2308:
2297:
2277:
2262:
2247:
1897:
Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, 16th Edition, 1989, Sweet and Maxwell, paragraph 18-41, at page 1036
1791:
1672:
1348:
1248:
701:
552:
361:
211:
277:
237:
162:
138:
120:
2191:
1990:
1846:
2347:
1484:
1467:
1093:
793:
785:
718:
694:
557:
125:
1368:
states have been slow to amend their versions of the statute to increase the trigger point.
1363:
has been modified by provisions of the UCC. There is a "catch-all" provision in the UCC for
1318:
Colorado has a number of different statutes of frauds applicable to different areas of law.
2352:
2323:
1598:
900:
585:
422:
272:
151:
57:
52:
1872:
847:
The statute of frauds typically requires a signed writing in the following circumstances:
510:(also implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or duty to negotiate in good faith)
8:
1817:
1397:
1172:
966:
929:
805:
341:
232:
97:
77:
2068:
2042:
2016:
1946:
1727:
2312:
1692:
1579:
1562:
1379:
1142:
704:, and Canadian jurisprudence in both Québec and the common law provinces pertaining to
627:
590:
432:
404:
370:
263:
248:
242:
216:
2118:
2108:
1495:
e.g. Tex. Gov't Code Sec. 82.065 (a)(b) (contingent fee contract for legal services.
1364:
1209:
1152:
832:
781:
777:
746:
484:
473:
143:
134:
115:
72:
2155:
1713:
2231:
1684:
1571:
1372:
1352:
1168:
1160:
1108:
507:
394:
389:
351:
346:
189:
172:
925:
905:
801:
399:
129:
106:
1560:
Cosgigan Jr., George P. (1913). "The Date and Authorship of Statute of Frauds".
2372:
1470:. It is written here as printed in "The Public General Acts, 1896", HMSO, 1896.
1194:
645:
536:
467:
452:
200:
47:
1247:
In the United States, for contracts for the sale of goods that fall under the
2341:
2311:
as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from
1402:
1392:
1141:
as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from
1098:
An Act to amend the Laws of England and Ireland affecting Trade and Commerce.
854:
820:
436:
184:
157:
87:
179:
1907:
1121:
924:
A defendant in a contract case who wants to use the statute of frauds as a
640:
635:
622:
413:
67:
2301:
2281:
2266:
2251:
1327:
self-represented) to be in writing to be enforceable. Tex. R. Civ. P. 11.
2169:
1480:
1463:
1309:
Those that make the contract "voidable" at the affected party's election.
836:
478:
384:
289:
206:
1792:"Statute of Frauds 1695 - An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries"
1696:
1583:
913:
876:
828:
816:
809:
680:
663:
82:
1775:
Deglman v Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada and Constantineau, S.C.R. 725
1155:, dating from 1677, was largely repealed in England and Wales by the
909:
No jurisdiction is satisfied by payment of the purchase price alone.
883:
631:
306:
32:
1688:
1575:
16:
Type of statute specifying that certain contracts must be in writing
1422:
1360:
1280:
baseball team logo or wall-to-wall carpeting for an odd-sized room.
1268:
1183:
986:
959:
872:
858:
761:
461:
356:
24:
2122:
1497:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.82.htm#82.065
1347:
In addition to general statutes of frauds, under Article 2 of the
1239:, sections 14(2) and Schedule 5 (with ss. 9(3)(5)(7), 13, 14(3)).
827:
jurisdictions have equivalent legislation incorporated into their
946:
A statute of frauds defense may also be affected by a showing of
757:
427:
1777:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2738/index.do
1677:
University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register
1164:
1295:
The statute of frauds in various states comes in three types:
2324:"Statutes of the Realm: volume 5: 1628-80 (1819), pp. 839-42"
1947:"Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Sec. 2"
1359:
The application of the statute of frauds to dealings between
890:
812:
of which is: An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries.
1673:"The Doctrine of Estoppel Applied to the Statute of Frauds"
1272:
the confirmation was not signed by the party to be charged.
617:
1973:"Mercantile Law Amendment Act Scotland 1856, c. 60, s. VI"
2316:
2069:"Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995, Schedule 5"
745:
For the 1677 Statute of Frauds in England and Wales, see
607:
697:
both in Québec and in the country's common law provinces
1559:
904:
is to be enforced. If there is no written agreement, a
882:
Contracts in which one party becomes a surety (acts as
2043:"Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995, Sec. 14"
2181:
3 Williston, Contracts §§526, 527 (3d ed. Jager 1960)
1543:
Section of International and Comparative Law Bulletin
2218:"Government Code Chapter 82. Licensing of Attorneys"
1171:
c. 97), dated 29 July 1856, which provides that the
700:
7 Specific to civil law jurisdictions, the American
1214:
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
1732:. New York: Baker, Voorhis & Company. p.
1628:Restatement (Second) of the Law of Contracts § 129
514:Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law
2339:
958:, held that partial performance and grounds for
2107:(12th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
1751:"Hill v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (1997)"
1335:and client." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 82.065(a).
886:) for another party's debt or other obligation.
879:to pay a debt of the estate with his own money.
839:, and any subsequent legislative developments.
669:2 Specific to civil and mixed law jurisdictions
2315:. Retrieved 22:04, Friday September 30, 2011 (
1873:"Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828, Sec. 6"
1157:Law Reform (Enforcement of Contracts) Act 1954
861:. This provision covers prenuptial agreements.
788:(29 Chas. 2 c. 3) passed in 1677 (authored by
2017:"Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995"
1841:
1839:
1139:Text of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856
726:
2103:Mann, Richard A.; Roberts, Barry S. (2015).
1991:"Mercantile Law Amendment Act Scotland 1856"
1261:for 70 televisions and not the original 100.
2105:Business Law and the Regulation of Business
2102:
1847:"Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856, Sec. 3"
1237:Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995
706:contractual and pre-contractual negotiation
2096:
1836:
1786:
1784:
1342:
1226:Mercantile Law Amendment Act Scotland 1856
733:
719:
2153:
1540:
1235:It was repealed on 1 August 1995 by the
1032:Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Act 2005
1781:
1670:
1639:
1618:Restatement (Second) of Contracts §110.
2340:
1725:
919:
502:Duty of honest contractual performance
1429:arriage, contracts for more than one
1038:. It remains largely in force today.
690:of International Commercial Contracts
1306:Those that declare contracts "void".
1230:Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828
1180:Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828
1050:
1921:"Law of Property Act 1925, Sec. 40"
1818:"Statute of Frauds (1677), Sec. IV"
1251:, additional exceptions may apply:
679:and other civil codes based on the
13:
2309:Text of the Statute of Frauds 1677
995:
14:
2389:
2290:
1068:Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856
1045:
2368:Corruption in the United Kingdom
2296:Statute of Frauds definition at
1738:statute of frauds seisen livery.
1242:
1086:Parliament of the United Kingdom
1079:
962:can make the contract effective.
819:jurisdictions have made similar
760:requiring that certain kinds of
504:(or doctrine of abuse of rights)
319:Enforcement of foreign judgments
283:Hague Choice of Court Convention
31:
2271:
2256:
2241:
2224:
2210:
2201:
2184:
2175:
2162:
2147:
2138:
2129:
2087:
2061:
2035:
2009:
1983:
1965:
1939:
1913:
1900:
1891:
1865:
1810:
1769:
1743:
1719:
1671:Summers, Lionel Morgan (1931).
1510:
1501:
1489:
1473:
1456:
952:Riley v. Capital Airlines, Inc.
2192:Statutes of Frauds in Colorado
1726:Fowler, Robert Ludlow (1909).
1716:, 2 AC 541 (3 April 2003)
1703:
1664:
1633:
1621:
1612:
1590:
1553:
1534:
1415:
842:
767:
312:Singapore Mediation Convention
1:
1640:Herbert, M.J. (Summer 1992).
1527:
1286:
1036:Statute Law Revision Act 2007
935:
686:5 Explicitly rejected by the
453:Quasi-contractual obligations
1186:. c .14) (commonly known as
1028:nativity of St. John Baptist
7:
2168:Arizona State Legislature,
2154:LII Staff (6 August 2007).
1386:
1313:
1219:
10:
2394:
2378:United States contract law
2198:, accessed 31 October 2022
2172:, accessed 31 October 2022
1265:Merchant confirmation rule
1061:United Kingdom legislation
1057:Formalities in English law
1054:
1021:
893:totaling $ 500.00 or more.
889:Contracts for the sale of
744:
324:Hague Judgments Convention
2170:44-101. Statute of frauds
1630:. American Law Institute.
1449:oods ($ 500.00 or more),
1137:
1130:
1120:
1115:
1102:
1092:
1078:
1073:
1066:
1000:
675:4 Specific to the German
1979:. The National Archives.
1408:
1321:
1206:Law of Property Act 1925
983:Easements by implication
380:Anticipatory repudiation
130:unequal bargaining power
1853:. The National Archives
1824:. The National Archives
1798:. Government of Ireland
1349:Uniform Commercial Code
1343:Uniform Commercial Code
1249:Uniform Commercial Code
702:Uniform Commercial Code
677:Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch
362:Third-party beneficiary
334:Rights of third parties
212:Accord and satisfaction
2075:. The National Archive
2049:. The National Archive
2023:. The National Archive
1997:. The National Archive
1953:. The National Archive
1879:. The National Archive
1714:[2003] UKHL 17
1277:specially manufactured
433:Liquidated, stipulated
278:Forum selection clause
163:Frustration of purpose
1485:Short Titles Act 1896
1468:Short Titles Act 1896
786:Parliament of England
695:Canadian contract law
63:Abstraction principle
2358:English contract law
1570:(4): 329 at 334–42.
1303:statute in Title 44.
928:must raise it as an
901:specific performance
823:, while a number of
821:statutory provisions
524:Related areas of law
423:Specific performance
273:Choice of law clause
238:Contract of adhesion
152:Culpa in contrahendo
58:Meeting of the minds
53:Offer and acceptance
2190:Porter, J. (2017),
2156:"Statute of frauds"
1646:Oklahoma Law Review
1517:entered of record.
1398:Parol evidence rule
976:"main purpose rule"
967:Promissory estoppel
930:affirmative defense
920:Raising the defense
806:Cavalier Parliament
688:UNIDROIT Principles
462:Promissory estoppel
342:Privity of contract
295:New York Convention
255:UNIDROIT Principles
98:Collateral contract
93:Implication-in-fact
78:Invitation to treat
2313:legislation.gov.uk
2144:U.C.C. 2-201(3)(a)
2093:U.C.C. 2-201(3)(b)
2073:legislation.gov.uk
2047:legislation.gov.uk
2021:legislation.gov.uk
1995:legislation.gov.uk
1977:Legislation.gov.uk
1927:. National Archive
1925:legislation.gov.uk
1877:legislation.gov.uk
1851:legislation.gov.uk
1822:legislation.gov.uk
1563:Harvard Law Review
1210:15 & 16 Geo. 5
1143:legislation.gov.uk
956:Schwedes v. Romain
804:and passed by the
508:Duty of good faith
405:Fundamental breach
371:Breach of contract
300:UNCITRAL Model Law
264:Dispute resolution
249:Contra proferentem
243:Integration clause
217:Exculpatory clause
2114:978-1-305-50955-9
1951:legislation.co.uk
1483:was given by the
1466:was given by the
1365:personal property
1224:Section 6 of the
1199:Freeman v. Palsey
1178:Section 6 of the
1169:19 & 20 Vict.
1161:2 & 3 Eliz. 2
1153:Statute of Frauds
1149:
1148:
1109:19 & 20 Vict.
1074:Act of Parliament
1051:England and Wales
899:In an action for
871:Contracts by the
833:reception statute
778:Statute of Frauds
774:statute of frauds
754:statute of frauds
747:Statute of Frauds
743:
742:
586:England and Wales
494:Duties of parties
485:Negotiorum gestio
474:Unjust enrichment
195:Statute of frauds
144:Unconscionability
116:Misrepresentation
73:Mirror image rule
2385:
2334:
2332:
2330:
2284:
2275:
2269:
2260:
2254:
2245:
2239:
2238:
2236:
2228:
2222:
2221:
2214:
2208:
2205:
2199:
2196:J.D. Porter, LLC
2188:
2182:
2179:
2173:
2166:
2160:
2159:
2151:
2145:
2142:
2136:
2135:U.C.C. 2-201(2)
2133:
2127:
2126:
2100:
2094:
2091:
2085:
2084:
2082:
2080:
2065:
2059:
2058:
2056:
2054:
2039:
2033:
2032:
2030:
2028:
2013:
2007:
2006:
2004:
2002:
1987:
1981:
1980:
1969:
1963:
1962:
1960:
1958:
1943:
1937:
1936:
1934:
1932:
1917:
1911:
1904:
1898:
1895:
1889:
1888:
1886:
1884:
1869:
1863:
1862:
1860:
1858:
1843:
1834:
1833:
1831:
1829:
1814:
1808:
1807:
1805:
1803:
1788:
1779:
1773:
1767:
1766:
1764:
1762:
1747:
1741:
1740:
1723:
1717:
1707:
1701:
1700:
1668:
1662:
1661:
1659:
1657:
1637:
1631:
1625:
1619:
1616:
1610:
1609:
1607:
1605:
1594:
1588:
1587:
1557:
1551:
1550:
1538:
1521:
1514:
1508:
1505:
1499:
1493:
1487:
1477:
1471:
1460:
1454:
1419:
1378:With respect to
1083:
1082:
1069:
1064:
1063:
948:part performance
792:assisted by Sir
735:
728:
721:
563:China (mainland)
532:Conflict of laws
395:Efficient breach
390:Exclusion clause
190:Illusory promise
173:Impracticability
35:
21:
20:
2393:
2392:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2363:1677 in England
2338:
2337:
2328:
2326:
2322:
2293:
2288:
2287:
2276:
2272:
2261:
2257:
2246:
2242:
2234:
2230:
2229:
2225:
2216:
2215:
2211:
2206:
2202:
2189:
2185:
2180:
2176:
2167:
2163:
2152:
2148:
2143:
2139:
2134:
2130:
2115:
2101:
2097:
2092:
2088:
2078:
2076:
2067:
2066:
2062:
2052:
2050:
2041:
2040:
2036:
2026:
2024:
2015:
2014:
2010:
2000:
1998:
1989:
1988:
1984:
1971:
1970:
1966:
1956:
1954:
1945:
1944:
1940:
1930:
1928:
1919:
1918:
1914:
1905:
1901:
1896:
1892:
1882:
1880:
1871:
1870:
1866:
1856:
1854:
1845:
1844:
1837:
1827:
1825:
1816:
1815:
1811:
1801:
1799:
1790:
1789:
1782:
1774:
1770:
1760:
1758:
1749:
1748:
1744:
1724:
1720:
1708:
1704:
1689:10.2307/3307890
1669:
1665:
1655:
1653:
1638:
1634:
1626:
1622:
1617:
1613:
1603:
1601:
1597:
1595:
1591:
1576:10.2307/1326318
1558:
1554:
1539:
1535:
1530:
1525:
1524:
1515:
1511:
1506:
1502:
1494:
1490:
1478:
1474:
1461:
1457:
1420:
1416:
1411:
1389:
1345:
1324:
1316:
1289:
1275:The goods were
1245:
1222:
1133:
1132:Status: Amended
1088:
1080:
1067:
1062:
1059:
1053:
1048:
1024:
1003:
998:
996:By jurisdiction
938:
922:
906:court of equity
845:
802:Leoline Jenkins
790:Lord Nottingham
776:comes from the
770:
750:
739:
710:
582:United Kingdom
545:By jurisdiction
17:
12:
11:
5:
2391:
2381:
2380:
2375:
2370:
2365:
2360:
2355:
2350:
2336:
2335:
2320:
2305:
2304:
2292:
2291:External links
2289:
2286:
2285:
2270:
2255:
2240:
2223:
2209:
2200:
2183:
2174:
2161:
2146:
2137:
2128:
2113:
2095:
2086:
2060:
2034:
2008:
1982:
1964:
1938:
1912:
1899:
1890:
1864:
1835:
1809:
1780:
1768:
1742:
1718:
1702:
1683:(4): 440–464.
1663:
1632:
1620:
1611:
1589:
1552:
1532:
1531:
1529:
1526:
1523:
1522:
1509:
1500:
1488:
1472:
1455:
1413:
1412:
1410:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1400:
1395:
1388:
1385:
1344:
1341:
1323:
1320:
1315:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1307:
1304:
1288:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1273:
1262:
1244:
1241:
1221:
1218:
1195:tort of deceit
1189:Lord Tenterden
1147:
1146:
1135:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1124:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1112:
1106:
1100:
1099:
1096:
1090:
1089:
1084:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1060:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1046:United Kingdom
1044:
1023:
1020:
1002:
999:
997:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
980:
972:
963:
937:
934:
921:
918:
897:
896:
895:
894:
887:
880:
869:
865:
862:
844:
841:
769:
766:
741:
740:
738:
737:
730:
723:
715:
712:
711:
709:
708:
698:
693:6 Specific to
691:
684:
673:
670:
667:
662:1 Specific to
659:
656:
655:
651:
650:
649:
648:
643:
638:
625:
620:
612:
611:
603:
602:
601:
600:
595:
594:
593:
588:
580:
575:
570:
565:
560:
555:
547:
546:
542:
541:
540:
539:
537:Commercial law
534:
526:
525:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
505:
496:
495:
491:
490:
489:
488:
481:
476:
471:
468:Quantum meruit
464:
456:
455:
449:
448:
447:
446:
441:
440:
439:
425:
417:
416:
410:
409:
408:
407:
402:
397:
392:
387:
382:
374:
373:
367:
366:
365:
364:
359:
354:
349:
344:
336:
335:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
316:
315:
314:
304:
303:
302:
297:
287:
286:
285:
275:
267:
266:
260:
259:
258:
257:
252:
245:
240:
235:
233:Parol evidence
227:
226:
225:Interpretation
222:
221:
220:
219:
214:
209:
204:
201:Non est factum
197:
192:
187:
182:
177:
176:
175:
170:
165:
155:
148:
147:
146:
132:
123:
118:
110:
109:
103:
102:
101:
100:
95:
90:
85:
80:
75:
70:
65:
60:
55:
50:
42:
41:
37:
36:
28:
27:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2390:
2379:
2376:
2374:
2371:
2369:
2366:
2364:
2361:
2359:
2356:
2354:
2351:
2349:
2346:
2345:
2343:
2325:
2321:
2318:
2314:
2310:
2307:
2306:
2303:
2299:
2295:
2294:
2283:
2279:
2274:
2268:
2264:
2259:
2253:
2249:
2244:
2233:
2232:"NO. 16-0107"
2227:
2219:
2213:
2204:
2197:
2193:
2187:
2178:
2171:
2165:
2157:
2150:
2141:
2132:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2110:
2106:
2099:
2090:
2074:
2070:
2064:
2048:
2044:
2038:
2022:
2018:
2012:
1996:
1992:
1986:
1978:
1974:
1968:
1952:
1948:
1942:
1926:
1922:
1916:
1909:
1903:
1894:
1878:
1874:
1868:
1852:
1848:
1842:
1840:
1823:
1819:
1813:
1797:
1793:
1787:
1785:
1778:
1772:
1756:
1752:
1746:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1730:
1722:
1715:
1711:
1706:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1667:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1636:
1629:
1624:
1615:
1600:
1593:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1564:
1556:
1548:
1544:
1537:
1533:
1520:
1513:
1504:
1498:
1492:
1486:
1482:
1476:
1469:
1465:
1459:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1418:
1414:
1404:
1403:Quia Emptores
1401:
1399:
1396:
1394:
1393:Oral contract
1391:
1390:
1384:
1381:
1376:
1374:
1369:
1366:
1362:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1319:
1308:
1305:
1302:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1293:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1250:
1243:United States
1240:
1238:
1233:
1231:
1227:
1217:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1202:
1200:
1197:(the tort in
1196:
1192:
1190:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1174:
1173:consideration
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1129:
1125:
1123:
1119:
1114:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1077:
1072:
1065:
1058:
1043:
1039:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
988:
984:
981:
977:
973:
969:
968:
964:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
933:
931:
927:
917:
915:
910:
907:
902:
892:
888:
885:
881:
878:
874:
870:
866:
863:
860:
856:
855:consideration
853:Contracts in
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
840:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
813:
811:
807:
803:
799:
798:Francis North
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
765:
763:
759:
756:is a form of
755:
748:
736:
731:
729:
724:
722:
717:
716:
714:
713:
707:
703:
699:
696:
692:
689:
685:
682:
678:
674:
671:
668:
666:jurisdictions
665:
661:
660:
658:
657:
653:
652:
647:
644:
642:
639:
637:
633:
629:
626:
624:
621:
619:
616:
615:
614:
613:
609:
605:
604:
599:
598:United States
596:
592:
589:
587:
584:
583:
581:
579:
576:
574:
571:
569:
566:
564:
561:
559:
556:
554:
551:
550:
549:
548:
544:
543:
538:
535:
533:
530:
529:
528:
527:
523:
522:
515:
512:
511:
509:
506:
503:
500:
499:
498:
497:
493:
492:
487:
486:
482:
480:
477:
475:
472:
470:
469:
465:
463:
460:
459:
458:
457:
454:
451:
450:
445:
442:
438:
437:penal damages
434:
431:
430:
429:
428:Money damages
426:
424:
421:
420:
419:
418:
415:
412:
411:
406:
403:
401:
398:
396:
393:
391:
388:
386:
383:
381:
378:
377:
376:
375:
372:
369:
368:
363:
360:
358:
355:
353:
350:
348:
345:
343:
340:
339:
338:
337:
333:
332:
325:
322:
321:
320:
317:
313:
310:
309:
308:
305:
301:
298:
296:
293:
292:
291:
288:
284:
281:
280:
279:
276:
274:
271:
270:
269:
268:
265:
262:
261:
256:
253:
251:
250:
246:
244:
241:
239:
236:
234:
231:
230:
229:
228:
224:
223:
218:
215:
213:
210:
208:
207:Unclean hands
205:
203:
202:
198:
196:
193:
191:
188:
186:
183:
181:
178:
174:
171:
169:
168:Impossibility
166:
164:
161:
160:
159:
158:Force majeure
156:
154:
153:
149:
145:
142:
141:
140:
139:public policy
136:
133:
131:
127:
124:
122:
119:
117:
114:
113:
112:
111:
108:
105:
104:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
88:Consideration
86:
84:
81:
79:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
64:
61:
59:
56:
54:
51:
49:
46:
45:
44:
43:
39:
38:
34:
30:
29:
26:
23:
22:
19:
2348:Contract law
2327:. Retrieved
2302:§ 2-201
2282:§ 8-319
2273:
2267:§ 1-206
2258:
2252:§ 2-201
2243:
2226:
2212:
2203:
2195:
2186:
2177:
2164:
2149:
2140:
2131:
2104:
2098:
2089:
2077:. Retrieved
2072:
2063:
2051:. Retrieved
2046:
2037:
2025:. Retrieved
2020:
2011:
1999:. Retrieved
1994:
1985:
1976:
1967:
1955:. Retrieved
1950:
1941:
1929:. Retrieved
1924:
1915:
1902:
1893:
1881:. Retrieved
1876:
1867:
1855:. Retrieved
1850:
1826:. Retrieved
1821:
1812:
1800:. Retrieved
1795:
1771:
1759:. Retrieved
1754:
1745:
1737:
1728:
1721:
1709:
1705:
1680:
1676:
1666:
1654:. Retrieved
1649:
1645:
1635:
1623:
1614:
1602:. Retrieved
1592:
1567:
1561:
1555:
1546:
1542:
1536:
1512:
1503:
1491:
1475:
1458:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1441:xecutor (or
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1417:
1377:
1370:
1358:
1346:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1317:
1294:
1290:
1276:
1264:
1257:
1246:
1234:
1223:
1203:
1198:
1187:
1177:
1150:
1126:29 July 1856
1122:Royal assent
1040:
1025:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
982:
975:
965:
955:
951:
947:
939:
923:
911:
898:
846:
814:
794:Matthew Hale
773:
771:
753:
751:
641:Criminal law
623:Property law
578:Saudi Arabia
483:
466:
247:
199:
194:
150:
68:Posting rule
25:Contract law
18:
2353:1677 in law
2079:4 September
2053:4 September
2027:4 September
2001:4 September
1957:4 September
1931:4 September
1883:4 September
1857:4 September
1828:4 September
1802:4 September
1761:4 September
1656:4 September
1481:short title
1464:short title
1425:"MY LEGS":
971:altogether.
843:Application
837:English law
829:civil codes
768:Terminology
479:Restitution
290:Arbitration
2342:Categories
2123:2015949710
1528:References
1380:securities
1373:deposition
1287:State laws
1094:Long title
1055:See also:
936:Exceptions
914:common law
817:common law
810:long title
681:pandectist
664:common law
444:Rescission
352:Delegation
347:Assignment
135:Illegality
83:Firm offer
1361:merchants
1267:. If one
1258:Admission
1216:(c. 34).
987:easements
884:guarantor
868:easement.
825:civil law
772:The term
762:contracts
683:tradition
553:Australia
400:Deviation
307:Mediation
40:Formation
1906:(1789) 3
1652:(2): 203
1599:"Report"
1445:state),
1423:mnemonic
1387:See also
1314:Colorado
1269:merchant
1220:Scotland
1184:9 Geo. 4
1104:Citation
1034:and the
979:writing.
960:estoppel
873:executor
859:marriage
800:and Sir
646:Evidence
618:Tort law
591:Scotland
414:Remedies
357:Novation
180:Hardship
107:Defences
48:Capacity
2329:9 April
1757:. lexum
1697:3307890
1604:6 March
1584:1326318
1301:Arizona
1022:Ireland
926:defense
808:), the
784:of the
758:statute
636:estates
568:Ireland
185:Set-off
126:Threats
121:Mistake
2300:
2280:
2265:
2250:
2121:
2111:
1755:CanLII
1695:
1582:
1453:urety.
1191:'s Act
1165:surety
1001:Canada
912:Under
796:, Sir
634:, and
632:trusts
606:Other
558:Canada
2373:Fraud
2235:(PDF)
1712:
1693:JSTOR
1580:JSTOR
1549:(24).
1479:This
1462:This
1437:and,
1433:ear,
1409:Notes
1353:goods
1322:Texas
1116:Dates
1111:c. 97
891:goods
875:of a
815:Many
780:, an
654:Notes
628:Wills
610:areas
573:India
435:, or
385:Cover
2331:2013
2119:LCCN
2109:ISBN
2081:2017
2055:2017
2029:2017
2003:2017
1959:2017
1933:2017
1885:2017
1859:2017
1830:2017
1804:2017
1796:eISB
1763:2017
1658:2017
1606:2007
1151:The
974:The
877:will
137:and
128:and
2317:UTC
2298:UCC
2278:UCC
2263:UCC
2248:UCC
1734:802
1685:doi
1572:doi
857:of
835:of
782:act
608:law
2344::
2319:).
2194:,
2117:.
2071:.
2045:.
2019:.
1993:.
1975:.
1949:.
1923:.
1910:51
1908:TR
1875:.
1849:.
1838:^
1820:.
1794:.
1783:^
1753:.
1736:.
1691:.
1681:79
1679:.
1675:.
1650:45
1648:.
1644:.
1578:.
1568:26
1566:.
1545:.
1232:.
985::
752:A
630:,
2333:.
2237:.
2220:.
2158:.
2125:.
2083:.
2057:.
2031:.
2005:.
1961:.
1935:.
1887:.
1861:.
1832:.
1806:.
1765:.
1699:.
1687::
1660:.
1608:.
1586:.
1574::
1547:3
1451:S
1447:G
1443:E
1439:E
1435:L
1431:Y
1427:M
1208:(
1182:(
1159:(
1145:.
749:.
734:e
727:t
720:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
