Plaintiff filed a petition for preliminary injunction asking the court to enjoin the sale of a 1991 Ferrari F40 to Karam Automotive Inc., as well as a complaint seeking specific performance of the alleged contract to sell the Ferrari to plaintiff for $800,000, or in the alternative, damages for defendants' breach of the alleged contract. Michael Haber alleged the following: on December 28, 2013, he met with Mr. Moore, who held himself out as the Executor of Mr. Brehaut's Estate and expressed to Mr. Moore his interest in purchasing a Ferrari that was part of the estate. On January 1, 2014, Mr. Moore informed Mr. Haber that the Estate of Mr. Brehaut would accept $800,000 for the Ferrari and said to him, "It's your car." On January 6, 2014, following an inspection by Mr. Haber's mechanic, Mr. Moore shook Mr. Haber's hand and said, "We have a deal." After the oral agreement was reached, Mr. Moore advised Mr. Haber that there was an outstanding loan against the Ferrari, and that he would have to contact the bank to satisfy the loan. Later, when Mr. Haber arrived at his office, he received a phone call from a credit union employee stating that $75,554.30 was required to pay off the loan. On January 10, 2014, in a phone conversation, Mr. Moore told Mr. Haber, "You're going to be pissed at me"; someone had offered him a higher amount for the car, and so he did not agree to sell the car to Mr. Haber. In his answer, the defendant denied that an agreement had been reached and pleaded the statute of frauds. Do you think the court applied the statute of frauds in this case to bar the action by the plaintiff? Why or why not? [Professional Sales, Inc. v. The Estate Of Joseph S. Brehaut, C. Christopher Moore, Jr., Executor And C. Christopher Moore, Jr. Individually And Joseph S. Brehaut And C. Christopher Moore, Jr. Partnership T/D/B/A Moll's Garage, 2014 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 768 (2015).]