Frauds, Statute Of - Definition - Law Dictionary Home Dictionary Definition frauds-statute-of

Definition :

Frauds, Statute of, 29 Car. 2, c. 3 (A.D. 1676). This famous statute is said to have been famed by Sir Matthew Hale, Lord Keeper Guilford, and Sir Leoline Jenkins, an eminent civilian. Lord Nottingham used to say of it, that 'every line was worth a subsidy,' and it has been said that at all events the explanation of every line has cost a subsidy, no statute having been the subject of so much litigation. The statute, though it does not apply or have any Act corresponding to it in Scotland, was practically copied by the Irish Parliament in 7 Wm. 3, c. 12, applies generally to the British colonies, and, remarks Mr. Chancellor Kent (2 Com. 494, n. (d), 'carries its influence through the whole body of American juris-prudence, and is in many respects the most comprehensive, salutary, and important legislative regulation on record affecting the security of private rights.'

The main object of the statute was to take away the facilities for fraud and the temptation to perjury which arose in verbal obligations, the proof of which depended upon unwritten evidence.

The greater part of the Statute of Frauds has been repealed by the following (English) statutes: Wills Act, 1837 (7 Will. 4 and 1 Vict. c. 26); Civil Procedure Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 59); Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 59); Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 71); Law of Property Act, 1925 (15 Geo. 5, c. 20); Administration of Estates Act, 1925 (15 Geo. 5, c. 23); and Judicature Act, 1925 (15 & 16 Geo. 5, c. 49), s. 162. There now remain in force s. 4 (amended), ss. 10, 11 and 23 and 24 (though repealed as to deaths occurring after 1925), and s. 22.

By secs. 1 and 2 (as replaced by (English) Law of Property Act, 1925, s. 54), all interests in land created by parol and not put in writing and signed by the parties making the same, or their agents lawfully authorized by writing, have the effect of leases at will only, except in the case of a lease taking effect in possession for not more than three years, at the best rent which can be reasonably obtained without taking a fine; and by s. 3 grants and surrenders were required to be by deed or writing signed by the party granting or surrendering, or his agent authorized by writing. S. 4 now reads:

No action shall be brought whereby to charge an executor or administrator upon any special promise, to answer damages out of his own estate; or whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriages of another person, or to charge any person upon any agreement made upon considera-tion of marriage [an expression held not to apply to the agreement to marry (Cork v. Baker, 1 Str. 33)]; or (as replaced by L.P. Act, 1925, s. 40, in regard to land) upon any contract for the sale or other disposition of land or any interest in land, or upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof, unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized.

The first three ss. (materially affected by the (English) Real Property Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 106), reproduced and amended by the L.P. Act, 1925, s. 52, which (subject to exceptions), requires a deed instead of a writing) and the 4th are of the greatest practical importance, and have been the subject of very numerous legal decisions.

The equitable doctrine of part performance which enables proof of a contract to be given notwith-standing the Statute of Frauds has been saved by L.P. Act, 1925, s. 40 (2). The doctrine is applied principally to contracts for the sale or purchase of land, but it also applies to other cases in which specific performance would be granted by a Court of Equity. It applies wherever the defendant has obtained some substantial advantage under a parol agreement which, if in writing, would be such as the Court would direct to be specifically performed, see McManus v. Cooke, (1887) 35 CD 681.

The 17th, or, as numbered in the Revised Statutes, the 16th, s. provided that no contract for the sale of goods for 10l. or more should be good, except the buyer should accept part, or give something in earnest to bind bargain or in part payment, or some memorandum in writing of the bargain should be made and signed by the parties to be charged or their agents; but this s. has been repealed by the (English) Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (see that title), and, as amended, is now represented by s. 4 of that Act.

The statute also contained important provisions as to the making, revocation, etc., of wills devising land, and as to nuncupative wills, etc., which have been repealed by the Wills Act, 1837 (1 Vict. c. 26), but s. 22, relating to the wills of soldiers and sailors, is still in force.

As to what constitutes an agreement not to be per-formed within a year, see Reeve v. Jennings, (1910) 2 KB 522; as to a promise to answer for the debt, etc., of another person, see Guild v. Conrad, (1894) 2 QB 884.

See Addison, Leake, or Pollock on Contracts; Chalmers' Sale of Goods; Agnew on the Statute of Frauds; and Chitty's Statutes, tit. 'Frauds.'