The fraud statute founded in 1677 through an act of parliament and developed through legislative processes over time is now adopted in the judicial systems of many nations in the world. This statute gives provisions governing a contract between two parties. In most of the statutes, the memorandum demands that the involved parties put down the contract in writing which includes telegrams, letters, receipts, or any other form of writing indicating the presence of contract while others do not require documentation yet can be enforced in a court of law. Contemporary society requires that binding agreements be documented. As the adage agitates there is no rule without an exception, this rule has its exceptions.
Rebecca’s case is a clear example of a binding agreement between her and the employer. Her quest for justice is viable based on the following grounds. First Rebecca documented the agreement in a letter which she presented to the employer who happens to be the other party of the agreement. In the letter, she put the agreements as per the agreement in the telephone conversation. The fact that the company did not give her reply until the time the contract was bridged means that they were in agreement and the contract was then binding. Moreover, the letter was signed by Rebecca who happens to be the charge or the complainant which is a prerequisite for validation of most of the cases of fraud. Secondly, the writing was done in good time before Rebecca moved to the city to accept the job offer this is also a necessity for execution of this statute. Thirdly the contract lasts for two years and therefore it qualifies only when it is documented which has been adhered to (Charles, 1677).
Contract laws do comply in many situations but a time comes when promises made cannot be enforced because they do not satisfy the conditions. The statutes of fraud are applicable in such situations. Contracts or promises fall under the statutes if they sort that the evidence of the contract is put in writing. In general, the following types of contracts fall within the statutes and demand writing as the evidence of agreement signed by the charged; collateral contracts where a person promises to fulfill some task, interest ensuing from a sale of land, bilateral contracts that are not executable in less than a year and selling of goods worth more than $500. Rebecca’s case, therefore, fits the first situation and qualifies as a case sorting defense from the statutes of fraud.
The statute of fraud, therefore, applies to the contract that Rebecca was to work in the company for at least more than two years given the fact that the conditions were very clear including the financial implications. This is because two parties are involved and there is documentation but despite this documentation one of the partners, the employer terminates the contract before the end of the minimal agreeable duration outlined in the contract.
In conclusion, the New York Convention gives the conditions for contracting agreement which is in tandem with the case at hand. The convention argues that every contracting state will always require a written article for it to qualify for arbitration upon the emergence of a conflict that is contrary to the definition of the legal relationship. It further gives the provision that “agreement in writing” is a term that should be entrenched into the arbitral clause and should contain a signature of either of the parties. Rebecca’s case, therefore, is a valid case of fraud (Reed, 1884).
References
Charles, I. (1677). An Act for prevention of Frauds and Perjuryes, Statutes of the Realm. United Kingdom: UK Statute Law.
Reed, H. (1884). A treatise on the law of the statute of frauds: and of other like enactments in force in the United States of America, and in the British Empire, Volume. New York: Kay & Brother.