<P> It was one thing to create an exception that displaced the need for a memorandum in writing, but something else to completely nullify the Statute's operation . The thrust of the Statute was that contracts concerning land could not be proved by parol evidence alone . Thus, part performance might be an exception, but it could not, in effect, mean that the underlying contract could be proven by parol evidence . In developing the "part performance" exception, a balancing of the competing considerations was required . An important factor in the case law became that the part performance must be "unequivocally" related to the alleged contract . </P> <P> The Statute of Frauds was passed in 1695 in Ireland . The statute is one of the few pre-Independence laws that survived the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Act 2005 and the Statute Law Revision Act 2007, and remains largely in force today . </P> <P> Some effects of the law have been softened by equity, for example the requirement that all contracts for sale of land be evidenced in writing can be circumvented by reliance on the doctrine of part performance . </P> <P> The Statute of Frauds (1677) was largely repealed in England and Wales by the Law Reform (Enforcement of Contracts) Act 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz 2 c 34). The only provision of it that is still extant is that part of Section 4 which provides that contracts of guarantee (surety for another's debt) are unenforceable unless evidenced in writing . This requirement is subject to section 3 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856 (19 & 20 Vict 97) which provides that the consideration for the guarantee need not appear in writing or by necessary inference from a written document . </P>

A contract that violates state or federal statutory law is