[7] Sections 1 to 4, so far as they related to personal actions or actions of ejectment in the Superior Courts of Law in Ireland, were repealed by section 3 of, and Schedule A to, the Common Law Procedure Amendment Act (Ireland) 1853 (16 & 17 Vict.

2. c. 6 (I) (1634), various questions have arisen in actions founded on simple contract, as to the proof and effect of acknowledgments and promises offered in evidence for the purpose of taking cases out of the operation of these Acts; and it is expedient to prevent such questions, and to make provision for giving effect to the said Acts and to the intention thereof.

Section 1 provided that in actions of debt or upon the case grounded upon any simple contract no oral acknowledgment or promise shall be deemed sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract, whereby to take any case out of the operation of the above Acts, or to deprive any party of the benefit thereof, unless such acknowledgment or promise shall be in some writing signed by the party chargeable thereby; and that where there shall be two or more joint contractors, no such joint contractor shall lose the benefit of the above Acts, so as to be chargeable in respect or by reason only of any written acknowledgment or promise made and signed by any other of them, and that nothing in this section shall alter or take away or lessen the effect of any payment of any principal or interest made by any person, and that in actions to be commenced against two or more such joint contractors, if it shall appear that the plaintiff, though barred by either of the above Acts or this Act, as to one or more of such joint contractors, shall nevertheless be entitled to recover against any other or others of the defendants, by virtue of a new acknowledgment or promise, judgment may be given the plaintiff as to such defendants against whom he shall recover, and for the other defendants against the plaintiff.

[10] This section was enacted to prevent section 4 of the Statute of Frauds being circumvented by bringing an action for the tort of deceit (the tort in Freeman v Palsey),[11] by requiring the representation of credit be in writing signed by the party charged.

Mr Wiseman, the defendant, argued that his signing the document constituted "writing" on behalf of the company but in regard to his personal liability it was "conduct", insufficient to be treated as "writing, signed by the party to be charged".

[12] In another Court of Appeal case, Roder UK Ltd v West (2011), it was held that an oral representation explaining (incorrectly) how an existing debt would be repaid did not reflect "an intent or purpose ... [to] obtain credit, money or goods", since credit had already been granted and the goods involved had already been supplied.

[13][14] This section provided that the Statute of Frauds relating to contract for the sale of goods for the price of ten pounds sterling or more shall cover goods to be delivered in the future, not yet manufactured, or not yet fit for delivery.

This section provided that writings required by this Act were not agreement subject to stamp duty.