(3) Even if the third party makes the promise to the creditor and promises to be liable for the debt only if the debtor is in default, an oral undertaking is applicable if the primary purpose of the third person is to make his promise for his own benefit. This is called the ”main purpose” rule. For example, one guarantor is a guarantor of another`s debt. This happens when one third party agrees to pay the obligations of another if the obligations are not paid by the debtor. The promise could be conditional or unconditional. The classic example here is a co-signer of a loan. This is the custom when someone with insufficient credit or income is looking for credit. Banks sometimes allow credit when a person with a stronger credit profile signs and thus agrees to repay the loan in case of delay of the borrower. These agreements are covered by the fraud statute.  However, some agreements cannot be annulled orally.
Those who, by their terms, exclude an oral lift are an obvious class. Under the PEA, certain agreements for the sale of goods cannot be cancelled orally, depending on the circumstances. For example, if the property has already passed to the buyer on the basis of a written agreement in accordance with the law, the contract can only be cancelled in writing. Land sales contracts are another category of agreements that cannot normally be cancelled orally. If ownership has already been transferred or if a significant change of position has occurred by relying on the contract, oral termination agreements are not enforceable. But a treaty that remains fully enforceable, although enforceable in writing, can be abrogated orally in most States. Second, some facility may be granted to someone who has invoked an oral contract to their detriment (similar to the partial performance doctrine already mentioned). A refund may be possible for a partially performed contract, which is not applicable under the Fraud Act.
Suppose George orally agrees to develop Arthur`s fifteen hectares, in exchange for George`s property one morning at the other end of the land. George is not entitled to Acre if Arthur is late, but he can recover the fair value of the services he provided up to the time of refusal. A little kinship, if a party has reasonably and predictably relied on a promise that can only be avoided by the application of injustice, some courts will use obligations to avoid the need for writing, but the link between the alleged oral contract and the unfavorable trust must be convincing. In addition to the status of fraud, as defined in a conventional way, the State of Texas has two rules governing litigation, each of which has the character of a fraud status. . . .