In July 2002, attorneys Linscott, Shasteen, and Brock formed a law firm and two years later drafted a proposed shareholder agreement specifying how attorney fees would be divided if any of the three left the firm. The proposed agreement contemplated that the departing attorney would receive a one-third share of all fees collected from existing in-process, open cases and that the firm would receive two-thirds. The proposed agreement was never executed, and in 2004 Linscott left the firm at the request of Shasteen and Brock, who offered to honor the proposed agreement for distribution of fees. From September 17, 2004, through January 10, 2005, Linscott sent 42 fee checks to Shasteen and Brock. Likewise, starting on September 20, 2004, and continuing through December 28, 2004, Shasteen and Brock sent 26 fee checks to Linscott. According to Brock, the exchange of fees was done without his knowledge, and when he learned of the arrangement, he ordered it to stop. Shasteen and Brock ceased sending checks on December 28, 2004, and Linscott filed a breach of contract lawsuit. In court, Shasteen and Brock argued that any implied contract was void under the statute of frauds as the time period from the break-up of the firm until the time of trial was over seven years. Based on these facts, was there an implied contract and could it have been performed within one year?