Discuss all of the following points in your post:
- What was the decision of the trial court in this case? Why did they rule that way?
- Why did the appeals court come to the opposite conclusion?
- What is the Statute of Frauds and what purpose does it serve?
- What is the “essential purpose” doctrine and why did the court find that it’s application was “common sense” in this case?
- How strong is the argument for the common sense approach?