Real estate contracts are covered by the Fraud Act, which include any contract to sell real estate interest for more than one year. For example, leases of more than one year, mortgage contracts (which give security interest to land) and contracts granting facilities (if they are valid for more than one year), all are covered by the Fraud Act and must be written to be enforceable.  The letter contained in the land purchase agreements must contain at least the purchase price, the identity of the parties and a description of the real estate for sale.  In common law, the Fraud Act also applies to treaty changes. In a verbal agreement on renting a car for nine months, immediately after taking over, the owner then decides that he really likes the car and makes an oral offer to the tenant to extend the duration of the tenancy by an additional six months. Although neither agreement is covered by the Fraud Act alone, the oral extension amends the original contract so that it obtains a 15-month lease (nine months plus the additional six months), which puts it under the law, since the contract is now for more than twelve months. In theory, the same principle works the other way around, so an agreement to reduce a lease from 15 months to nine months would not require writing. However, many jurisdictions have adopted statutes that require a letter for such situations. With respect to the second argument, the Fraud Act does not apply to a contract that is no longer complete, since it has been fully executed on the one hand and the other party has more than one year to carry out its share of the good deal. Id.
at 522. The Chins fully fulfilled their part of the agreement when they secured the loan, which allowed Raymond to go to the college of his choice. As a result, the Fraud Act did not apply. And while not essential to its decision, the court also found that the automatic retraction and controls signed by Raymond constituted written evidence of the parties` verbal agreement, sufficient to meet the requirements of the status of fraud. Id. at 523. Accordingly, the court rejected Raymond`s affirmative defence under the Fraud Act in its entirety. An accused in a contractual case who wants to use the law of fraud as a defence must raise it in a timely manner as a positive defence.  The burden of proof of the existence of a written contract comes into play only when the defendant prefers a law to defend fraud.
The classic example is a contingency fee contract in a case of assault, which provides that the applicant`s lawyer receives a certain percentage of the amount of the transaction (or the amount awarded by judgment) without legal costs, the percentages being generally modulated and increased depending on whether a transaction was filed before the appeal, but in court, or if a favourable judgment for the client has been obtained through court proceedings.