this section will be found in Boydell v. Drummond, 11 E. 142., the facts of which I have already stated in a former lecture; and Birch v. The Earl of Liverpool, 9 B. & C. 392. (a) ment. Geraud v. Richmond, C. J.) was to prevent frauds 15 Law Jour. C. P. 180. by perjury and subornation But where it is expressed in of perjury, which might set short and in complete terms, up promises by word of as we have previously seen, mouth to serve for a long parol evidence of the situa- period of years, or to enter tion of the parties is admis- into a partnership for life, or sible to explain what is per promises of a similar nature. se unintelligible. Sweet v. The statute merely says, that Lee, 3 M. & Gr. 452. a party shall not be hurt by evidence of parol promises of such a nature as that. * * * Looking at the terms here, I see nothing which must necessarily extend the agreement beyond the year. there be an agreement to serve for two years, that is undoubtedly within the statute; but if the agreement be to serve, and that such service may be put an end to on a month's notice, it is not within it." The same case decides that no agreement having reference to an executed consideration is within the statute; the agreement must be prospective, not retrospective. (a) The statute applies only to agreements of which the entire performance by both parties, in their contemplation, as gathered from the scope and terms of the memorandum, must necessarily extend beyond the year. To this extent has the doctrine laid down in Boydell v. Drummond been applied in the very recent case of Souch v. Strawbridge, 15 Law Jour. C. P. 170., where the agreement was that the plaintiff should keep the defendant's child so long as the defendant should think proper; and he did keep it for some years. This was held not to require a written memorandum, for "the object of the statute (said TINDAL If A contemplated performance of the agreement by either of the parties within Recapitulation of Lectures. I have now gone through the five cases to which the fourth section of the statute of Frauds applies, and in which it requires a written memorandum of the contract. There are one or two other cases of very considerable importance in practice on which I shall briefly observe in the next lecture, in which a writing is required by the express enactment of the legislature. Having mentioned them, I shall say something of the consideration upon which a simple contract may be grounded, and which is, as you are aware, an essential part of every such contract; and then, having finished the remarks I had to make on Simple Contracts exclusively, shall resume the consideration of the general law of contracts, and shall speak of the competency or incompetency of the contracting parties, and of remedies by which, in case of breach of contract, their performance is to be enforced. the year will take it out of on that ground, when the buyer had had the full benefit of the goods within the year. (Donellan v. Read, 3 B. & Ad. 899.) If either party is to perform his part of the agreement, therefore, within the year, it need not be in writing. 69 LECTURE IV. SALE OF GOODS, ETC. UNDER THE 17TH SECTION OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.-CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACTS BY DEED AND OF SIMPLE CON TRACTS. I CONCLUDED in the last lecture the consideration of the five cases in which the fourth section of the statute of Frauds renders it necessary that a contract should be reduced to writing. There are, as I then said, one or two other cases, which, being of constant occurrence, it will be right to specify before proceeding to the next branch of the subject. of the value The first of these cases is that of a sale for Sale of goods the price of 107. or upwards, regarding which the seventeenth section of the statute of Frauds upwards. has provided as follows: — section. "No contract for the sale of any goods, wares, or mer- The 17th chandizes (a), for the price of 10l. or upwards shall be good, except the buyer shall accept part of the goods so sold, and actually receive the same; or give something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part payment; or that some note or memorandum in writing of the said bargain be made and signed by the parties to be charged by such contract, or their agents thereunto lawfully authorized." The first great difference which you will observe between this section and the fourth section of the same act is, that the fourth section ren (a) See Humble v. Mitchell, 11 Ad. & Ell. 205. It avoids contracts within and not in accordance with it. Contracts for chattels not in esse. ders a writing necessary in all cases which fall within its terms; whereas the seventeenth mentions three circumstances, any one of which it directs shall be as effectual as a writing, namely, acceptance of any part of the goods, payment of part of the price, and THIRDLY, the giving something by way of earnest to bind the bargain; any one of which three things will as effectually perfect the sale as a writing would. Where none of these has taken place, a writing, however, becomes necessary; and if there be none, the bargain is void, and there is no sale: for, to use the words of Mr. J. BOSANQUET in Laythroap v. Bryant, "the fourth section does not avoid contracts not signed in the manner described; it only precludes the right of action. The seventeenth section is stronger, and avoids contracts not made in the manner prescribed." A parol sale, therefore, unaided by any of the three formalities mentioned in the seventeenth section as equivalent to writing, is totally and entirely void. A doubt was entertained at one period whether the seventeenth section included the case of a contract for something not in existence in a chattel estate at the time of making the bargain, but which was to become a chattel before the time agreed upon for its delivery. Where, for instance, growing timber was bargained for, to be delivered cut into planks, or a ship or a carriage not yet built. However, any doubt that formerly existed on this subject is ance. s. 7. now put an end to, for by stat. 9 Geo. 4. c.14. 9 Geo. 4. c.14. "Shall extend to all contracts for the sale of goods of the What con- hands of a del credere agent, |