Explain the reason behind having a Statute of Frauds and give arguments for and against having such a statute.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The British Parliament passed the original Statute of Frauds in 1677 to prevent lying (fraud) in civil lawsuits. At that time, neither the plaintiff nor defendant was permitted to testify at trial. The Statute of Frauds was passed to provide juries with more reliable evidence as to the existence of a contract by requiring that certain types of contracts be in writing to be enforceable. Almost all states of the U.S. have passed their own version of the Statute of Frauds in order to provide courts with the best possible evidence of whether parties intended to make a contract. An argument for Statutes of Fraud is that they are a valuable tool for justice. The requirement of a writing cautions people to be careful before making or relying on a promise. An argument against Statutes of Fraud is that rather than preventing wrongdoing, they help people commit fraud. Someone might orally agree to terms and then, if the terms become unprofitable, walk away from the contract, knowing it would be unenforceable without a writing.