“Pursuant to section 1622 of the Civil Code, all contracts may be oral except those contracts that are specially required by statute to be in writing. Moreover, all property may be transferred “without [a] writing in every case in which a writing is not expressly required by statute.” Absent a requirement of a writing, oral contracts are fully valid and enforceable. As a result, an initial step in analysis of any statute of frauds dispute is whether the contract is one required or permitted to be in writing. The principal California statute specially requiring contracts to be in writing is section 1624 of the Civil Code, codifying the statute of frauds. The statute of frauds invalidates oral contracts respecting the matters within the scope of the statute when the contracts are not evidenced by a writing. Section 1624 of the Civil Code invalidates seven categories of contracts ‘unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party’s agent.’ The statute is designed to prevent fraud and perjury by requiring that certain contracts be evidenced in a writing signed by or on behalf of the person to be liable thereon. In fulfillment of this purpose to prevent fraud, the statute of frauds cannot be used to effect or perpetuate fraud.”
[California Affirmative Defenses [certain citations omitted]]
