Hi, Please help me answer these. If you aren't sure about the answer, Please don't provide me with an incorrect answer and have me waste a question post. Thank You!

Lakeisha promises a local hardware store that she will pay for a lawn mower that her brother is purchasing on credit if the brother fails to pay the debt. Must this promise be in weiting to be enforceable under the Statute of frauds? a. Yes because the Statute of Frauds requires collateral promises to be in writing x b. No, if the lawnomower is actusly for Lakeisha. Ether A or E, depending on who will own the lawninower. Jokn Johnson asked his father-in-law Don West to act as a straw (s person who is put up in name only to take part in a deal to acquire real property near lohnson's ranch - the Yeliowstone Ranch in return. Wett agreed to act as a straw to assist Johnson in purchasing another property-the Smith farm. West purchased the Yellowstone Ranch and canveyed it lohnson, Subsequently, lohvion purchased the Smith farm and conveyed the property to hirnsey, West took no part in the purchase of the Smith farm. provided none of the purchsse price, and did not know that the purchese had taken place until a month later. When West learned of the purchase and asked Johnson to sell the farm to him fohason refured Wost fied a complaint keving specific pedormance of Johinsen's oral agrement to convey the smith farm to him, The trial court dismissed West's action concluding that the Statute of Frauds operated as a complete defense. West appealed, arguing that johnson was estopped from pleading the Statute of frauds as a defense because he. witfered injury in resionable rebance on the oral agreement both becwuse he purchaed property on Johnson behalf and because he took no action to purehase the Smith fam on his own behalt. Wil the appellate court uphokd the trial court's ruling? a. No beceuse Weits teasonsble relance on his son-ith-Law promise as demonstrated by his purchase of the Yellowstone Ranch foc Johnsons is sutficient evidence of promasory estoppel, which is an waception to the Slatute of freuds. 6. Yes, because specuic petorinance is wartarted when the party seeking relief suflers "the infliction of an unjuit and unconcientious ingury and bis. Yhe becarie Weu provided no money toward the purchese of the lam and offered no evidence that he would have atiempted to purchase it or would have sought out another to do so on his behalf, had the oral agreement not existed