Question

Does the coverage of the Statute of Frauds make sense as it currently stands? Would it be better to expand the law and require that all contracts be in writing? Or should the law be done away with altogether? 250 word minimum.

Answer 1

We are mainly able to make two kinds of contracts such as written or oral contracts. The Statute of Frauds is a legal document that says about those contracts which are to be prepared in the written format or otherwise that affects the legal validity of the contract. The law behind this statute is called as  Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Any type of contract that does not have a mention in the Statute of Frauds is valid even if a written contract is not there. The Statute of Frauds is dealing with contracts related to sale or transfer of land, sale of goods for value above $500, the performance of a contract cannot be completed one year from the date of the contract, one person agrees to pay the debt of another, etc. The Statute of Frauds can be different in different states but mostly it would be in line with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It helps the state to reduce the chance of fraud related to the matters mentioned in the statute to a great extend. When we check the matters mentioned in The Statute of Frauds it is very much clear that The Statute of Frauds is concerned with those contracts which require more commitment from the part of the contracting parties. But The Statute of Frauds need not be applied in the case of all the contracts because that will make the life of people difficult. There must have an approach to avoid the chance of fraud and also protection of the easiness of life. So it is good that the status-quo must be continued as far as The Statute of Frauds is concerned.