Because of his success in a big case, a lawyer named Melbourne promised his assistant, Barbara, a large bonus. After the case settled, Melbourne met with Barbara to discuss when and how much he would pay her. In the conversation that she secretly recorded, Melbourne agreed to pay Barbara $1 million, plus $65,000 for a luxury automobile. Payments were to be made in monthly installments of $10,000, for 10 years. Melbourne also agreed to sign a document confirming his promise. Barbara's lawyer drafted the writing, but Melbourne never signed it. He did pay nine monthly installments, along with an extra payment of $100,000.

Argument for Barbara: The Statute of Frauds exists to prevent fraud. The fear that a plaintiff would lie about a contract is not an issue here. We know what Melbourne agreed to do because we heard him. Argument for Melbourne: If there was an agreement, it could not have been performed in one year because it had 10 years' worth of instalment payments.

• Did Melbourne and Barbara have a valid contract? You may use the IRAC format to answer this question, but you do not have to. However, you must fully answer the question with an explanation including what the law says...

Second Question: Landlord owned a clothing store and agreed in writing to lease the store's basement to another retailer. The written lease, which both parties signed, (1) described the premises exactly, (2) identified the parties, and (3) stated the monthly rent clearly. But an appeals court held that the lease did not satisfy the statute of frauds. Why not?