Matchbox Construction Company was developing a parcel of land for a new golf course and condo development. Saul Goodman owned ten percent of matchbox's stock and, as its attorney, was owed $25,000, for legal services rendered. Matchbox hired Francis Weemet to perform golf course design work for the project, but failed to pay Weemet as agreed. Weemet removed his crew from the project and ceased all work. To secure additional financing. Matchbox needed additional engineering work done immediately. At a conference on financing held at the offices of Dewey, Cheetum and Howe, Saul Goodman orally agreed to pay all of matchbox's bills in the event of Matchbox's failure to do so. Weemet continued to perform engineering and design work but received no further payments. Because Matchbox was insolvent (broke) Weemet sued Goodman for the amounts due him from Matchbox. Goodman contended that his promise was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The trial court rendered judgment for Goodman arguing that the Statute of Frauds applied. What does the Statute of Frauds dictate? Should Goodman be held liable on his oral promise to pay for the engineering/design work