Devlin was the owner of a large residential subdivision with several lots for sale. Parnell became interested in purchasing a lot but could not decide between Lot 40 and Lot 41. The price and fair market value of Lot 40 and Lot 41 was $5,000. Parnell paid Devlin $5,000, which Devin accepted, and Devlin delivered to Parnell a deed which was properly executed, complete, and ready for recording in every detail except that the space in the deed for the lot number was left blank. Devlin told Parnell to fill in either Lot 40 or Lot 41 according to his decision and then to record the deed. Parnell visited the subdivision the next day and completely changed his mind, selecting Lot 25. Parnell filled in Lot 25 and duly recorded the deed. The price of Lot 25 and its fair market value was $7,500. Before Devlin had time to learn of Parnell's actions, Parnell sold Lot 25 to Caruso for $6,000 by a duly and properly executed, delivered, and recorded warranty deed. Caruso had no knowledge of the agreement between Devlin and Parnell regarding Lots 40 and 41. Devlin brought an appropriate action against Caruso to recover title to Lot 25. If Devlin loses, the most likely basis for the judgment is that

a-the Statute of Frauds prevents the introduction of any evidence of Devlin and Parnell's agreement. b- recording of the deed from Devlin to Parnell precludes any question of its genuineness. c- Caruso, as a bona fide purchaser, prevails over Devlin. d-the clean hands doctrine bars Devlin from relief.