What is one way that reliance can override the Statute of Frauds?

Reliance can override the Statute of Frauds when a party has made significant plans or taken substantial actions based on the expectation that an agreement will be honored. This concept is rooted in the principle of estoppel, where one party may rely on the assurances or representations of another party to their detriment. If one party commits themselves to a course of action that is difficult or impossible to reverse—such as incurring expenses or making other arrangements based on the belief that the agreement will be fulfilled—courts may find it unfair to let the other party back out of the agreement. This scenario establishes a level of reliance that can override the strict requirements of the Statute of Frauds, which typically mandates that certain agreements be in writing to be enforceable.

Unwritten understandings do not typically satisfy legal requirements when the Statute of Frauds is concerned, while a contract that heavily favors one party does not inherently create grounds for overcoming the Statute. Notarized documentation does not, in itself, negate the need for a written contract in the context of the Statute of Frauds; it serves to authenticate a document but does not address whether the contract meets statutory requirements. Thus, the notion of reliance as a reason for overriding the Statute of