This chapter surveys the Statute of Frauds and the policy judgment that some agreements require reliable written evidence before enforcement. Saruman’s Forgeries provides an especially apt Middle-earth frame for thinking about authenticity, signatures, and the risks of fabricated proof.
Doctrinal map
The Statute (R2d §§ 110, 129–134; UCC § 2-201) makes certain agreements unenforceable absent a writing. The chapter teaches which contracts fall within the Statute, what a signed memorandum must include (essential terms with reasonable certainty per R2d § 131; Sterling v. Taylor), and the doctrines that escape the bar — most notably promissory-estoppel-based estoppel (R2d § 139; McIntosh v. Murphy) and the UCC’s specially manufactured goods, admissions, and partial-performance exceptions.
Key Sources
Key Rules
- R2d § 110: Contracts that must be in writing (marriage, year, land, executor, goods ≥$500)
- UCC § 2-201: Writing required for sale of goods ≥ $500
- Part performance exception
Cases
- McIntosh v. Murphy 52 Haw. 29, 469 P.2d 177 (1970) Promissory estoppel can take an oral contract out of the Statute of Frauds where the promisee has reasonably and foreseeably relied to substantial detriment, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcement.
- Sterling v. Taylor 40 Cal. 4th 757, 152 P.3d 420, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 116 (2007) A memorandum sufficient under the Statute of Frauds need only state the essential terms with reasonable certainty; extrinsic evidence may resolve ambiguity in those terms, but it may not supply or contradict essential terms missing from the writing.