Types of Writing to Satisfy Statute of Frauds - Explained
When is a Contract Considered to be In Writing?
If you still have questions or prefer to get help directly from an agent, please submit a request.
We’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
- Marketing, Advertising, Sales & PR
- Accounting, Taxation, and Reporting
- Professionalism & Career Development
Law, Transactions, & Risk Management
Government, Legal System, Administrative Law, & Constitutional Law Legal Disputes - Civil & Criminal Law Agency Law HR, Employment, Labor, & Discrimination Business Entities, Corporate Governance & Ownership Business Transactions, Antitrust, & Securities Law Real Estate, Personal, & Intellectual Property Commercial Law: Contract, Payments, Security Interests, & Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Insurance & Risk Management Immigration Law Environmental Protection Law Inheritance, Estates, and Trusts
- Business Management & Operations
- Economics, Finance, & Analytics
Table of ContentsWhat type of writing is required to satisfy the statute of frauds?Discussion QuestionPractice QuestionAcademic Research
What type of writing is required to satisfy the statute of frauds?
To meet the requirements of the statute of frauds, there must be a sufficient writing to demonstrate that a contract exists. The writing can be typed, handwritten, or electronic. The agreement must generally be signed by the party against whom it is being enforced. A signature may be a mark, seal, stamp, electronic signature, or a handwritten agreement. Between merchants, a confirmation regarding the contract by one merchant that is not objected to by the other merchant will be sufficient, even though it is not signed by the other merchant.
Next Article: Exceptions to Statute of Frauds Back to: CONTRACT LAW
- When is a contract required to be in writing Statute of Frauds?
- Exceptions to the Statute of Fraud
- Documents Under Seal
- Who Can Sign Contracts on Behalf of a Company?
- E-Sign Act
Why do you think that the definition of a writing is construed so broadly? Is this broad interpretation justified or does it unduly detriment a party? Why?
Frank agrees to sell Amy his collector-edition, signed baseball card. Frank writes on the back of the a napkin, I agree to sell Amy my Mickey Mantle rookie card for $2000. Will this be a sufficient writing to satisfy the statute of frauds?