It is impossible to describe in detail the exact wording of the statutes of fraud in each of the states. Two important differences must be noted at the outset however. Some states only re-enact the fourth section of the original statute, while others re-enact both the fourth and the seventeenth.

The second difference goes to the effect of the failure to reduce the contracts covered by the statute to writing. The original statute merely provided that "no action shall be brought," unless the contracts of the classes mentioned were in writing, and this form of expression has been followed in the large majority of the states. The effect of such a wording is to make the act apply not to the right, but merely to the remedy. The contract is good, but the courts will not enforce it. If the contract comes into the case only collaterally it may be relied on and proved.1 In a few states2 the statutes expressly provide that certain contracts shall be void unless in writing and under such circumstances, an oral contract of any of the classes covered would be absolutely without effect.