Jump to content

Talk:Statute of frauds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger Suggestion[edit]

This Wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_frauds) should probably be merged with this Wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Frauds), which is also about the statute of frauds.

It looks like this suggestion has been lingering for a year, perhaps longer. This article (Statute of frauds is general in nature, the other Statute of Frauds is about a specific U.K. law. The other might be better titled to avoid confusion, and there may be an argument to merge that article into this one (under United Kingdom, but this article should be preserved as the one that addresses the statutes of frauds from all nations (not just the U.K.).Arllaw (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The article says that "The title comes from the so-called "bad act" that the law proposes to prevent - the perpetration of fraud. This is not the case with most laws. For example, most jurisdictions have laws proscribing theft. However, none of these laws are called the "statute of theft." In fact, such laws against theft generally follow the standard practice of simply not having an informal, descriptive title."

I really do not understand this. There are a large numer of statutes with such titles - for example (and in no particular order): (a) the Theft Act 1968, (b) the Theft Act 1978, (c) the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, (d) the Malicious Damage Act 1861, (e) the Criminal Damage Act 1971, (f) the Treason Act 1351, (g) the Fraud Act 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. The "Curious name" section is the weirdest thing I've read in a long time. I think all the even tangentially important information in that section could be summed up in a sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a cite to a newly promulgated UCC statute of frauds for goods? I was not aware that NCCUSL was recommending raising the threshold to $5,000. Ellsworth

However, there is and has been a catch-all statute of frauds for personal property not otherwise covered by the Code or other law. That is UCC 1-206, and it does have a $5000 threshold. However AFAIK there has been very little reported case law on that section. Ellsworth 18:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


"UCC section 1-206 also contains a "catch-all" statute of frauds" --- what is UCC? does this refer to United States Law? perhaps this could be made more clear.

Yes, it does - I am not aware of any other jurisdiction which has adopted the UCC, although it's certainly been influential. Ellsworth 13:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was also not clear at how UCC could have sprung into the general article.

UCC stands for the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted in all 50 states. 03:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

…11:25 P.M. E.S.T. Just currious, is it posible that the American Revolutionaries had something here with this form of Art Economics History profile or am i just making the balloon a hole lot bigger, is there any proof out there that there is any posibility, because realy i am all for just the reanactment of a thorough Congress in cession. Realy here i am interested in Miss Bates and the America The Beautifull and then i go on to search how Christian Propaganda showed up on the talk Page and ofcourse as a Art economics History buff i continue, realy till next time and i will allways consider the Past as almost what i and or most go through as a learning experience and then some relaxation.David George DeLancey (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)talk about self interest that talk page is way out of controll,either one that is America the Beautifull or Miss Bates the poem writer of it, i hope the poem is exact for if it is then sea to shining sea is a very neat believe through this sight stateing it is just and only in sort words a reference of the United states persay Pacific to Atlantic how precise is that and where again are the stated dates and reference of whom reported this article should be issued, i find alot of misrepresentational efforts here with this sight and they wonder why we type in what we type in realy get real or are we legaly just to beleive these theories, without the period i may add that i may start my own representational effort on this sight on how we do this yes all for me or is it.David George DeLancey (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the 1677 Act should be called[edit]

This article says that 1677 c.3 is 'more properly called the Statutes of Frauds and Perjuries'. As far as I am aware the short title of that Act is 'the Statute of Frauds', which was given to it by the Short Titles Act 1896 (I source this from the Public General Acts 1896, HMSO; though I have to qualify this by saying that SLD claim that the short title awarded was 'the Statute of Frauds 1677'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by James500 (talkcontribs) 09:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Revision to the Statute[edit]

The 2003 revision has increased the threshold for the requirement that a contract be in written form from $500 to $5000 - as can be verified by Cornell Law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-201 Dsciacca (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)dsciacca[reply]