Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828. (See end of Document for details) Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828 1828 CHAPTER 14 9 Geo 4 An Act for rendering a written Memorandum necessary to the Validity of certain Promises and Engagements. [9th May 1828] Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Short title given by Short Titles Act 1896 (c. 14) C2 Preamble omitted under authority of Statute Law Revision Act 1890 (c. 33) C3 This Act is not necessarily in the form in which it has effect in Northern Ireland 1 . F1 Textual Amendments F1 S. 1 repealed by Limitation Act 1939 (c. 21), Sch. 2 . F2 Textual Amendments F2 S. 2 repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1890 (c. 33) 3, 4. F3 Textual Amendments F3 Ss. 3, 4 repealed by Limitation Act 1939 (c. 21), Sch. 2 Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828 (c. 14) Document Generated: 2021-07-21 Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828. (See end of Document for details) 5 . F4 Textual Amendments F4 S. 5 repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1875 (c. 66) 6 Representations of character. No action shall be brought whereby to charge any person upon or by reason of any representation or assurance made or given concerning or relating to the character, conduct, credit, ability, trade, or dealings of any other person, to the intent or purpose that such other person may obtain credit, money, or goods [F5upon,] unless such representation or assurance be made in writing, signed by the party to be charged therewith. Textual Amendments F5 Sic 7 . F6 Textual Amendments F6 S. 7 repealed by Sale of Goods Act 1893 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 71), Sch. 8 . F7 Textual Amendments F7 S. 8 repealed by Limitation Act 1939 (c. 21), Sch. 9 Not to extend to Scotland. Nothing in this Act contained shall extend to Scotland. 10 . F8 Textual Amendments F8 S. 10 repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1873 (c. 91) Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828 (c. 14) 3 Document Generated: 2021-07-21 Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828..

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Shattering and Moving Beyond the Gutenberg Paradigm: the Dawn of the Electronic Will
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 42 2008 Shattering and Moving Beyond the Gutenberg Paradigm: The Dawn of the Electronic Will Joseph Karl Grant Capital University Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph K. Grant, Shattering and Moving Beyond the Gutenberg Paradigm: The Dawn of the Electronic Will, 42 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 105 (2008). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol42/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SHATTERING AND MOVING BEYOND THE GUTENBERG PARADIGM: THE DAWN OF THE ELECTRONIC WILL Joseph Karl Grant* INTRODUCTION Picture yourself watching a movie. In the film, a group of four siblings are dressed in dark suits and dresses. The siblings, Bill Jones, Robert Jones, Margaret Jones and Sally Johnson, have just returned from their elderly mother's funeral. They sit quietly in their mother's attorney's office intently watching and listening to a videotape their mother, Ms. Vivian Jones, made before her death. On the videotape, Ms. Jones expresses her last will and testament. Ms. Jones clearly states that she would like her sizable real estate holdings to be divided equally among her four children and her valuable blue-chip stock investments to be used to pay for her grandchildren's education.
[Show full text]
Norms, Formalities, and the Statute of Frauds: a Comment
University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1996 Norms, Formalities, and the Statute of Frauds: A Comment Eric A. Posner Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Eric Posner, "Norms, Formalities, and the Statute of Frauds: A Comment," 144 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1971 (1996). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NORMS, FORMALITIES, AND THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS: A COMMENT ERIC A. POSNERt INTRODUCTION Jason Johnston's Article makes three contributions to the economics and sociology of contract law.' First, it provides a methodological analysis of the use of case reports to discover business norms. Second, it makes a positive argument about the extent to which businesses use writings in contractual relations. Third, it sets the stage for, and hints at, a normative defense of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) section 2-201. Although the first contribution is probably the most interesting and useful, I focus on the second and third, and comment only in passing on the first. I conclude with some observations about the role of formalities in contract law. I. JOHNSTON'S POSITIVE ANALYSIS A. The Hypothesis Johnston's hypothesis is that "strangers" use writings for the purpose of ensuring legal enforcement. "Repeat players" do not use writings for this purpose because they expect that nonlegal sanctions will deter breach.
[Show full text]
Statute Law Repeals: Twentieth Report Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill
2015: 50 years promoting law reform Statute Law Repeals: Twentieth Report Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill LC357 / SLC243 The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM No 357) (SCOT LAW COM No 243) STATUTE LAW REPEALS: TWENTIETH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers June 2015 Cm 9059 SG/2015/60 © Crown copyright 2015 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Print ISBN 9781474119337 Web ISBN 9781474119344 ID 20051507 05/15 49556 19585 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ii The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman Professor Elizabeth Cooke1 Stephen Lewis Professor David Ormerod QC Nicholas Paines QC. The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Elaine Lorimer. The Law Commission is located at 1st Floor, Tower, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AG The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Pentland, Chairman Caroline Drummond David Johnston QC Professor Hector L MacQueen Dr Andrew J M Steven The Chief Executive of the Scottish Law Commission is Malcolm McMillan.
[Show full text]
Imperial Acts Adopted
Western Australia Imperial Acts Adopted STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT This document is from an electronic database of legislation maintained by the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office of Western Australia. DISCLAIMER No warranty is given as to the accuracy or completeness of this document. The State of Western Australia and its agents and employees disclaim liability, whether in negligence or otherwise, for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on the accuracy or completeness of this document. REPRINT AND CONSOLIDATION NUMBERING The reprint number (in the footer of each page of the document) shows how many times the Act has been reprinted. For example, numbering a reprint as “Reprint 3” would mean that the reprint was the 3rd reprint since the Act was passed. A consolidation described as “Consolidation 3a” would be the result of updating Reprint 3 for the first time to reflect the amendments since the date as at which Reprint 3 was prepared. Reprint and consolidation numbering was implemented as from 1 January 2003. COPYRIGHT Copyright in this document is reserved to the Crown in right of the State of Western Australia. Reproduction except in accordance with copyright law is prohibited. THE TEXT OF THE LEGISLATION FOLLOWS Western Australia Imperial Acts Adopted CONTENTS Bills of exchange (day for payment) (1836) [1.] Bills of exchange need not be presented to acceptors for honour or referees till the day following the day on which they become due 10 2. If the following day be a Sunday, etc., then on the day following such Sunday, etc. 11 Bills of exchange (non-payment) (1832) [1.] Bills of exchange expressed to be paid in any place other than the residence of the drawee, if not accepted on presentment, may be protested in that place, unless amount paid to the holder 12 Civil Procedure Act 1833 2.
[Show full text]
United States District Court Southern District of Indiana New Albany Division
Case 4:06-cv-00074-JDT-WGH Document 45 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION MADISON TOOL AND DIE, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) 4:06-cv-0074-JDT-WGH ) ) ZF SACHS AUTOMOTIVE OF AMERICA, ) INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ENTRY ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND (Docs. No. 21 & 29)1 This matter comes before the court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike Jury Demand. (Docs. No. 21 & 29.) Plaintiff Madison Tool and Die, Inc. (“Madison”) filed this cause in Jefferson County, Indiana, Circuit Court alleging that Defendant ZF Sachs Automotive of America, Inc. (“Sachs”) breached a contract under which Madison was to supply parts to Sachs. On May 11, 2006, Defendant removed this case to United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. (Doc. No. 1.) (The parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.) On March 22, 2007, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the Indiana Statute of Frauds (“Statute of Frauds” or “Statute”) rendered the alleged oral contract unenforceable and that promissory estoppel does not take this oral 1 This Entry is a matter of public record and will be made available on the court’s web site. However, the discussion contained herein is not sufficiently novel to justify commercial publication. Case 4:06-cv-00074-JDT-WGH Document 45 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: <pageID> contract or promise outside the operation of the Statute.
[Show full text]
Estoppel to Avoid the California Statute of Frauds Philip H
McGeorge Law Review Volume 35 | Issue 3 Article 4 1-1-2004 Estoppel to Avoid the California Statute of Frauds Philip H. Wile University of the Pacific; cGeM orge School of Law Kathleen Cordova-Lyon University of the Pacific; cGeM orge School of Law Claude D. Rohwer University of the Pacific; cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Philip H. Wile, Kathleen Cordova-Lyon & Claude D. Rohwer, Estoppel to Avoid the California Statute of Frauds, 35 McGeorge L. Rev. 319 (2004). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr/vol35/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Estoppel to Avoid the California Statute of Frauds Philip H. Wile,* Kathleen C6rdova-Lyon** and Claude D. Rohwer*** TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS AND EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL ............................ 321 II. SEYMOUR AND ITS PROGENY ..................................................................... 325 III. THE IMPACT OF THESE INROADS ON THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS .............. 337 IV. THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT CASES ............................................................ 341 V. FULLER'S THREE FUNCTIONS REVISITED ................................................. 344 VI. MONARCO AND ITS PROGENY .................................................................... 344 V II. THE BROKER CASES ................................................................................. 355 VIII. THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS IN ARTICLE 2 .................................................. 363 IX. THE CALIFORNIA PRINCIPLES AND THE RESTATEMENT ........................... 364 The statute of frauds was enacted to prevent fraud.' The statute of frauds 2 cannot properly be asserted as a defense when to do so would perpetrate a fraud.
[Show full text]
English Contract Law: Your Word May Still Be Your Bond Oral Contracts Are Alive and Well – and Enforceable
Client Alert Litigation Client Alert Litigation March 13, 2014 English Contract Law: Your Word May Still be Your Bond Oral contracts are alive and well – and enforceable. By Raymond L. Sweigart American movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn is widely quoted as having said, ‘A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.’ He is also reputed to have stated, ‘I’m willing to admit that I may not always be right, but I am never wrong.’ With all due respect to Mr Goldwyn, he did not have this quite right and recent case law confirms he actually had it quite wrong. English law on oral contracts has remained essentially unchanged with a few exceptions for hundreds of years. Oral contracts most certainly exist, and they are certainly enforceable. Many who negotiate commercial contracts often assume that they are not bound unless and until the agreement is reduced to writing and signed by the parties. However, the courts in England are not at all reluctant to find that binding contracts have been made despite the lack of a final writing and signature. Indeed, as we have previously noted, even in the narrow area where written and signed contracts are required (for example pursuant to the Statute of Frauds requirement that contracts for the sale of land must be in writing), the courts can find the requisite writing and signature in an exchange of emails.1 As for oral contracts, a recent informative example is presented by the case of Rowena Williams (as executor of William Batters) v Gregory Jones (25 February 2014) reported on Lawtel reference LTL 7/3/2014 document number AC0140753.
[Show full text]
The British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act, 1960 Act No. 57 of 1960
THE BRITISH STATUTES (APPLICATION TO INDIA) REPEAL ACT, 1960 ACT NO. 57 OF 1960 [26th December, 1960.] An Act to repeal certain British statutes in their application to India. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Eleventh Year of the Republic of India as follows:— 1. Short title.—This Act may be called the British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act, 1960. 2. Repeal of certain British statutes in their application to India.—The British statues specified in the Schedule, in so far as they extend to, and operate as part of the law of, India or any part thereof, are hereby repealed. 3. Savings.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the repeal by this Act of any British statute shall not affect the operation of any such statute in relation to India and to persons and things in any way belonging to or connected with India in any country to which the India (Consequential Provision) Act, 1949 (12, 13 and 14 Geo VI, c. 92), extends. 1 THE SCHEDULE (See section 2) BRITISH STATUTES REPEALED IN THEIR APPLICATION TO INDIA Serial No. Year Short title or subject 1 1297 Magna Carta (25 Edw. 1, c. 1 and 29). 2 1331 Unlawful attachment (5 Edw. 3, c. 9). 3 1354 Non-condemnation without due process (28 Edw. 3, c. 3). 4 1540 The Marriage Act, 1540 (32 Hen. 8, c. 38). 5 1551-2 The Sale of Offices Act, 1551 (5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 16). 6 1677 The Statute of Frauds (29 Cha. 2, c.
[Show full text]
The Cohen Case and the One Year Provision of the Statute of Frauds
Fordham Law Review Volume 25 Issue 4 Article 7 1956 The Cohen Case and the One Year Provision of the Statute of Frauds Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation The Cohen Case and the One Year Provision of the Statute of Frauds, 25 Fordham L. Rev. 720 (1956). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol25/iss4/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. 25 of an indemnity agreement. The failure to consider this principle may result in an injustice to the insured. This point may be illustrated by contrasting the O'Dowd and Union Paving cases. The basis of the injured party's cause of action in the former case was that the Housing Authority was passively negligent and the insured was actively negligent. The theory of the cross-claim was that the insured was ultimately liable on its indemnity agreement because it had been solely negligent. Thus an implied in law obligation to indemnify was easily recognized as the real basis of the insured's liability. In the latter case, however, the Paving Company's complaint merely alleged the sweeping indemnity agree- ment as the basis of the insured's liability. The important difference in the two cases is that in the latter the court failed to recognize the possibility of a liability of the insured which (though in form the result of his indemnity agree- ment) was in substance a liability he would have incurred in the absence of such an agreement.
[Show full text]
Statute Law Revision Bill 2007 ————————
———————— AN BILLE UM ATHCHO´ IRIU´ AN DLI´ REACHTU´ IL 2007 STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL 2007 ———————— Mar a tionscnaı´odh As initiated ———————— ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Definitions. 2. General statute law revision repeal and saver. 3. Specific repeals. 4. Assignment of short titles. 5. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1896. 6. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1962. 7. Miscellaneous amendments to post-1800 short titles. 8. Evidence of certain early statutes, etc. 9. Savings. 10. Short title and collective citation. SCHEDULE 1 Statutes retained PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 [No. 5 of 2007] SCHEDULE 2 Statutes Specifically Repealed PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 ———————— 2 Acts Referred to Bill of Rights 1688 1 Will. & Mary, Sess. 2. c. 2 Documentary Evidence Act 1868 31 & 32 Vict., c. 37 Documentary Evidence Act 1882 45 & 46 Vict., c. 9 Dower Act, 1297 25 Edw. 1, Magna Carta, c. 7 Drainage and Improvement of Lands Supplemental Act (Ireland) (No. 2) 1867 31 & 32 Vict., c. 3 Dublin Hospitals Regulation Act 1856 19 & 20 Vict., c. 110 Evidence Act 1845 8 & 9 Vict., c. 113 Forfeiture Act 1639 15 Chas., 1. c. 3 General Pier and Harbour Act 1861 Amendment Act 1862 25 & 26 Vict., c.
[Show full text]
The Statute of Frauds and Partnership/Operating Agreements
November–December 2008 State Law & State Taxation Corner By Thomas E. Rutledge The Statute of Frauds and Partnership/Operating Agreements n a recent decision, Olson v. Halvorsen,1 the Delaware Supreme Court addressed whether the IStatute of Frauds, as it relates to agreements that are not susceptible to performance within one year, is applicable to LLC operating agreements. In this in- stance, and as a matter of law, the Delaware Chancery Court held that the Statute of Frauds does apply to those aspects of an oral operating agreement that are not susceptible to performance within a single year. Olsen v. Halvorsen and Its Facts Olsen, Halvorsen and Ott formed a series of com- panies for the purpose of operating a pair of hedge funds, Viking Global Equities LP and Viking Global Equities III Ltd., focused on, respectively, on-shore and off-shore opportunities. Viking Global Found- ers LLC (“Founders”), whose relationship with the two hedge fund limited partnerships is never made express in the opinion, had as members Olsen, Halvorsen and Ott. The draft operating agreement of Founders, which agreement was never signed, contained an earn-out provision entitling a departing partner to an earn-out over six years. For several of the other related companies, written operating agree- ments were executed and put in place. In 2005, Halvorsen and Ott, with Halvorsen repre- senting a 55-percent interest and Ott a 22.5-percent interest, determined to expel Olsen from the busi- ness. Consequent to that determination, they paid to Olsen his capital account balance and the remainder Thomas E.
[Show full text]
Chapter 3. STATUTE of FRAUDS CHAPTER 3
MRS Title 33, Chapter 3. STATUTE OF FRAUDS CHAPTER 3 STATUTE OF FRAUDS §51. Writing required; consideration need not be expressed No action shall be maintained in any of the following cases: 1. Executor or administrator. To charge an executor or administrator upon any special promise to answer damages out of his own estate; 2. Debt of another. To charge any person upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or misdoings of another; 3. Agreement of marriage. To charge any person upon an agreement made in consideration of marriage; 4. Contract for sale of land. Upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or of any interest in or concerning them; 5. Agreement not to be performed within one year. Upon any agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof; 6. Contract to pay debt discharged in bankruptcy. Upon any contract to pay a debt after a discharge therefrom under the bankrupt laws of the United States, or assignment or insolvent laws of this State; 7. Agreement to give property by will. Upon any agreement to give, bequeath or devise by will to another, any property, real, personal or mixed; 8. Agreement to refrain from carrying on any business. Upon any agreement to refrain from carrying on or engaging in any trade, business, occupation or profession for any term of years or within any defined territory or both; the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any such agreement made prior to August 13, 1947; unless the promise, contract or agreement on which such action is brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some person thereunto lawfully authorized; but the consideration thereof need not be expressed therein, and may be proved otherwise.
[Show full text]