Mr Trefusis agreed with an agent called Mr Girdlestone to buy a house for andpound;700. Girdlestone was in fact acting for a Mr Daniels but later claimed to be a principal who had bought from Mr Daniels for andpound;600 and was sub-selling to Mr Trefusis at an increased price. Girdlestone commenced an action against Mr … Continue reading Daniels v Trefusis: 1914
The customer had deposited title deeds with the bank as security for a loan, but no deed of charge had been executed. Held: The mere deposit of title deeds does not create an equitable charge without more. The 1989 Act operated as a statutory bar to such a claim. The rule that the deposit of … Continue reading United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib and Others: ChD 24 Jun 1994
The parties disputed whether a contract had been made. The proposed contract was contained in a letter and a plan but only the plan was signed by both parties. Held: The requirements of Section 2 had not been satisfied because it was the letter which contained the contract which referred to the plan and incorporated … Continue reading Firstpost Homes Ltd v Johnson and Others: CA 14 Aug 1995
The name of a seller was printed on a bill of parcels but he in turn wrote on the contract the name of the purchaser.
Held: The seller had adopted the writing of his own name and a signature within the Statute of Frauds. The essential . .
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .
The applicants sought a declaration that they had not provided guarantees to support a contract between a joint venture company owned by them, OnDigital, and the respondent to screen football matches. The company had become insolvent. Held: The applicants had indicated in the initial bid document that they would guarantee the bid, but that guarantee … Continue reading Carlton Communications Plc, Granada Media Plc v The Football League: ComC 1 Aug 2002
The bank appealed against a decision that the simple deposit of deeds with a bank did not take effect as an equitable charge. Held: Depositing deeds with a bank is not sufficient to create a charge over them. The old law as to the creation of an equitable mortgage by deposit of deeds had been … Continue reading United Bank of Kuwait Plc v Sahib and Others: CA 2 Feb 1996
An undated guarantee signed by a woman without any English language skills was not a sufficient memorandum. Citations: Ind Summary 18-Apr-1995 Statutes: Statute of Frauds 1677 4 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Banking Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89511
Smith v Webster was not to be taken as meaning that the agent must have had authority to sign the document as a record of the contract. All that Smith v Webster decided was that, in order to satisfy the Statute, it must be shown that the agent signing was an agent ‘thereunto lawfully authorised’ … Continue reading John Griffiths Cycle Corporation, Limited v Humber and Co, Limited: 1899
N agreed to sell to L certain premises in Chinnor for andpound; 590 and gave him a receipt for a andpound; 50 deposit. The receipt, which was regarded by both parties as their contract, was in the following terms: ‘Received of [L] the sum of andpound; 50 on the purchase price andpound; 590 for the … Continue reading North -v Loomes: 1919
A written proposal was purportedly accepted orally. The requirements of the 1677 Statute were satisfied where a signed written offer containing the requisite terms was accepted orally by the other party.Willes J said: ‘The only question is, whether it is sufficient to satisfy the statute that the party charged should sign what he proposes as … Continue reading Reuss v Picksley: 1866
The defendant wrote to the plaintiff requesting the assignment of a patent to him to hold as trustee for an institution who would pay him a share of the profits on exploitation of the patent, and if the profits fell below a figure, the patent would be re-assigned. The plaintff agreed orally. Held: The Statute … Continue reading Smith v Neale: 1857
ALSmith LJ discussed the 1677 Act: ‘The object of the Statute was to prevent fraud and perjury by taking away the right to sue on certain agreements if only established by verbal evidence . . The object of the statute being merely to exclude parol evidence, any writing embodying the terms of the agreement and … Continue reading In re Hoyle: CA 1893
An offer was made in writing by the Defendant to sell two parcels of real property on alternative bases, where one of the alternatives was accepted both orally and by letter by the Plaintiff. He suggested two bases upon which the 1677 Act operated to make the Plaintiff’s apparent acceptance of the offer not binding: … Continue reading Lever v Koffler: 1901
Owners wished to let their vessel on time charter to Afram Line Limited but were unwilling to do so without a guarantee. The negotiations were conducted by Centre Shipping on behalf of owners and Dipgrove Holdings on behalf of charterers. It was agreed at an early stage of the negotiations that there would be a … Continue reading The Anemone: 1987
The plaintiff stockbrokers agreed with the defendant that he would introduce business to them which they would conduct on the stock exchange. If any profit were made it would be shared equally; if losses resulted, the defendant would be liable to the plaintiff for half. The agreement was oral. Held: the agreement was not a … Continue reading Sutton v Gray: CA 28 Nov 1893
The defendant had been a member of a syndicate which owed money to the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the syndicate and tried (unsuccessfully) to execute a writ of fi fa. The defendant then gave an oral promise that, if the plaintiff would desist in execution, he would issue bills of exchange to satisfy … Continue reading Harburg India Rubber Comb Co v Martin: CA 1902
The essential characteristics of a signature are that it indicates recognition and approval of the contents of a document.
Nourse LJ said: ‘Any writing by the party to be charged by which he identifies himself or by which he can be identified . .
A defendant sought to deny liability under a document relying on the 1677 Statute. the relevant document had been drawn up by a duly authorised agent of the Defendants. The document was a letter from the Plaintiff and the words ‘Messrs Hoare, Marr . .
Actionstrength agreed with Inglen to provide construction staff to build a factory for St-Gobain. Inglen failed to pay. Actionstrength claimed against for the amount due. Inglen went into liquidation. The claim was now against St-Gobain. The claim . .
The court was asked ‘whether a contract of guarantee is enforceable where contained not in a single document signed by the guarantor but in a series of documents duly authenticated by the signature of the guarantor. It is common in commercial . .
The 1677 Statute is complied with if, per Fry LJ: ‘First, there must be at or before the date of the issue of these shares, a contract; secondly, that contract must be duly made in writing; and thirdly, that contract must be filed with the . .
The claimant sought payment for works undertaken. They had been given a promise that in return for not withdrawing their workforce from the site, the second defendants would redirect payments due to the first defendant to the claimant. When it came . .
A mere payment of a sum of money might amount to an act of part performance, as might the act of a purchaser instructing solicitors to prepare and submit a draft conveyance or transfer, so as to leave asituation capable of enforcement in equity. . .
The parties said: ‘Mrs Ford: Where would money come from if M [the principal debtor] had to repay andpound;1 million? Colin Searle [the second defendant, M’s chairman]: From wherever in the group the money was at the relevant time. I’ll make sure it is there. I am good for andpound;1 million.’ The judge had held … Continue reading Motemtronic Limited v Autocar Equipment Limited: CA 20 Jun 1996
The plaintiffs contracted to buy a plot of registered land with a house to be built on it. The developer had charged the estate as a whole to a bank to secure the development finance. The developer became insolvent and the bank sold the estate as mortgagee to the first defendant ‘subject to and with … Continue reading Lyus v Prowsa Developments Ltd: ChD 1982
A document began by referring to ‘the under mentioned parties’ and then referred to the parties in question by name in relation to various promises. Neither party signed the document and the question was whether the document constituted a sufficient note or memorandum signed by the parties to be bound within Section 4. Held: It … Continue reading Caton v Caton: HL 1867
The court considered the stautus under the 1677 statute in the case of a telegram which stated that it came from the sender and did so with his express authority. Citations: (1871) 25 LT 804 Statutes: Statute of Frauds 1677 9 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Distinguished – Mehta v J Pereira Fernandes SA … Continue reading McBlain v Cross: 1871
The court was asked as to the effect of a note or memorandum in the form of instructions to a telegraph company signed by the party to be charged on whose behalf the telegram concerned was sent. Held: Bovill CJ said: ‘the mere telegram written out and signed in the way indicated by the telegram … Continue reading Godwin v Francis: 1870
An exchange of letters which together constituted a binding agreement would satisfy the requirements of Section 4 as it applied to contracts for the sale of land. Lord Selborne said: ‘The observation has often been made, that a contract established by letters may sometimes bind parties who, when they wrote those letters, did not imagine … Continue reading Hussey v Horne-Payne: HL 1879
The requirement of the doctrine of part performance is that the acts of part performance relied upon must be ‘referable’ to the contract sued on. The principle underlying the doctrine of part performance was expressed by Lord Selborne: ‘In a suit founded on such part performance, the defendant is really ‘charged’ upon the equities resulting … Continue reading Maddison v Alderson: HL 1883
The parties were in dispute. The now respondent threatened winding up. The appellant had someone in his company send an email requesting an adjournment and apparently giving a personal guarantee to a certain amount. The application was adjourned, but the applicant then did not honour the guarantee, saying that it was not enforceable, the email … Continue reading Mehta v J Pereira Fernandes SA: ChD 7 Apr 2006
A property was purchased by the defendant which the court found to have been on the basis as trustee for the plaintiff. The defendant resisted the plaintiff’s claim on the ground of, inter alia, absence of writing. Held: This defence was rejected. Though imperfectly recorded, a constructive trust was created. The 1677 Statute cannot be … Continue reading Rochefoucald v Boustead: CA 12 Dec 1896
The defendant shareholder provisionally agreed for the sale of his shares without regard to a right of pre-emption in favour of the claimants. He then made an oral promise to indemnify the claimants against any losses should the purchaser fail to satisfy any liability arising. He now argued that there was no consideration and therefore … Continue reading Pitts and others v Jones: CA 6 Dec 2007
D, who was in hospital and near death, said to R (his former partner): ‘The house is yours, Margaret. You have the keys. They are in your bag. The deeds are in the steel box.’ After D’s death R discovered that D had put had put into her bag the only key to a steel … Continue reading Sen v Headley: CA 28 Feb 1991
The defendants sought to set aside orders allowing the claimants to serve proceedings alleging repudiation of a charterparty in turn allowing a claim against the defendants under a guarantee. The defendant said the guarantee was unenforceable under the 1677 Act not being in writing and signed. Held: There was no limit to the number of … Continue reading Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another: ComC 21 Jan 2011
The parties disputed whether a contract had been entered into for the sale of land, and whether new evidence could be entered on an appeal against a strike out. The estate agents had signed a contract as agents for the mortgagee in possession, but . .
The claimant sought to allege that the defendant company director was personally liable after misrepresentations as to the company’s creditworthiness in ordering goods when the defendant was really insolvent.
Held: The defendant’s appeal . .
A contract which fails to meet the standards required under the Act is not not void, but is merely unenforceable. . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts