Peter and John are at a party. After a few alcoholic drinks, Peter and John decide to talk real estate. Peter tells John that he would like to buy John's house, which is in a neighborhood where houses sell for about $100,0000. John's house clearly needs some major repairs which would likely cost tens of thousands of dollars (but no estimates have been obtained from contractors). Peter offers to buy John's house for $13.500. John, laughing and slurring his words in a very drunken state, says, "Sure Peter. I accept!" Peter then writes the offer on a napkin and has John sign it. The next day, Peter comes to John's house with the $13,500, and John refuses to go forward on what Peter refers to as "our real estate deal." Peter then sues John. What is the best reason why John should win the lawsuit (succeed in holding onto his home)? Contracts for a sale of house need to be in an actual contract, not a napkin. John was joking: he would likely never sell his house for just $13,500. John was intoxicated The Statute of Frauds rejects the notion of contracts being in writing, Neither Peter nor John never intended to make a valid contract