Formal Requirements

The policy reasons behind the Statute of Frauds Act 1695

to provide certainty, reduce litigation, preserve evidence of agreements, and protect parties from false or exaggerated claims.

Sale of Goods Act 1893

Historically, contracts for goods over specified value require one of the forms of evidence

1.     Acceptance and receipt of the goods

2.     Earnest money or part payment.

3.     A written memorandum.

Earnest money is

a sum paid to demonstrate the buyer's commitment to the transaction

Howe v Smith

the court described earnest as “something given by the buyer to bind the bargain”

To qualify as earnest, it must be

given by the buyer, accepted by the seller, and intended to demonstrate commitment to the contract

According to Clark, a valid memorandum must contain enough information to identify the agreement with certainty. The memorandum should identify:

o   The parties involved

o   The subject matter of the contract

o   The consideration or price

o   The essential contractual terms

Tiverton Estates v Wearwell

The case established that where parties use subject to contract language, the courts normally presume that a formal contract is still required before legal obligations arise

Park Holdings v Coen

The Supreme Court adopted a flexible and commercial approach. Rather than focusing solely on the phrase subject to contract, the court examined the objective intentions of the parties, their conduct, and whether all essential terms have been agreed.

Part performance

The doctrine allows an otherwise unenforceable oral contract to be enforced where one party is acted in reliance on the agreement.
The focus is on:

1. Whether there was an agreement concerning land.

2. Whether the claimant carried out acts that are unequivocally referable to that agreement.

Madison v Alderson

A housekeeper claimed the property had been promised in return for years of service through agreement was oral. The House of Lords refused to enforce the agreement because the work performed could be explained by the claimant's employment relationship. The case established A strict approach requiring acts that clearly demonstrate the existence of the alleged contract.

Parker v Taswell

This case reaffirmed the Madison approach. Conduct relied upon most strongly indicate the existence of the contract itself and not merely be consistent with it.

Lowry v Reed

Irish courts confirmed that the acts relied upon must point to one specific transaction. If the behaviour can reasonably be explained by some other relationship or arrangement, the claim fails.

Steadman v Steadman

The case softens the strict approach of Madison. The House of Lords held that the claimants acts do not need to prove every term of the agreement. Instead, they must make the existence of the contract more probable. This more flexible approach reflects the equitable purpose of preventing unfairness

Burden of proof

A person claiming part performance must prove:

o   An oral contract existed

o   Acts were performed in reliance on it

o   Those acts were unequivocally referable to the agreement