Statute of Frauds
What is the Statute of Frauds?
The Statute of Frauds requires certain categories of contracts to be evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged in order to be enforceable.
Source: Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 305 N.Y. 48 (1953)
Definition
The Statute of Frauds, originally enacted in England in 1677, requires that certain types of contracts be evidenced by a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. The statute does not require a formal written contract—a memo, letter, or even a collection of writings may suffice—but the essential terms must be reflected in some written form. The purpose is to prevent fraud and perjury in the proof of certain significant agreements.
The categories of contracts covered by the Statute of Frauds are commonly remembered by the mnemonic MY LEGS: Marriage (contracts made in consideration of marriage), Year (contracts that cannot be performed within one year from the date of making), Land (contracts for the sale or transfer of an interest in land), Executor (promises by an executor to pay estate debts from personal funds), Goods (sale of goods over $500 under UCC section 2-201), and Surety (promises to answer for the debt of another).
Important exceptions exist. Under the UCC, the writing requirement for goods may be satisfied by a merchant's confirmatory memo, partial performance, specially manufactured goods, or judicial admissions. Under common law, part performance (especially involving land) and promissory estoppel may take a contract outside the statute. The statute is an affirmative defense; if not raised, the contract is enforceable despite noncompliance.
Key Elements
- 1The contract falls within a covered category (MY LEGS)
- 2There must be a writing or memo evidencing the agreement
- 3The writing must contain the essential terms of the contract
- 4The writing must be signed by the party to be charged
- 5No applicable exception removes the contract from the statute's coverage
Landmark Cases
Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.
305 N.Y. 48 (1953)
Held that multiple documents could be pieced together to satisfy the statute of frauds if at least one is signed and they clearly refer to the same transaction.
McIntosh v. Murphy
52 Haw. 29 (1970)
Applied promissory estoppel to enforce an oral employment contract that fell within the one-year provision of the Statute of Frauds.
Azevedo v. Minister
86 Nev. 576 (1970)
Addressed the merchant's confirmatory memo exception under UCC 2-201, holding that failure to object within ten days satisfies the writing requirement between merchants.
Riley v. Capital Airlines, Inc.
185 F. Supp. 165 (S.D. Ala. 1960)
Illustrates the one-year provision, holding that a contract that could possibly be performed within one year does not fall within the statute.
Exam Tips
- Use MY LEGS to quickly identify whether a contract falls within the Statute of Frauds.
- For the one-year rule, measure from the date of contract formation, not from the date performance begins, and ask whether performance is possible within one year—not probable.
- Always check for exceptions: part performance, promissory estoppel, merchant confirmatory memo, specially manufactured goods, and judicial admissions.
- Remember it is an affirmative defense that must be raised by the defendant.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Applying the one-year rule incorrectly: if the contract is capable of being performed within one year, it falls outside the statute, even if performance is unlikely within that time.
- Confusing the requirement for a signed writing with a requirement for a formal written contract—a signed napkin with essential terms can suffice.
- Forgetting the UCC merchant's confirmatory memo exception, which is frequently tested.
Memory Aid
MY LEGS: Marriage, Year (cannot be performed within one year), Land, Executor, Goods ($500+), Surety.