Stewart was looking for a home to purchase, but realized currently his credit was not good enough to buy the house he wanted.Kelly was a friend and had a home he owned and was renting it out.He approached Stewart about renting his home with the possibility of purchasing it later.Stewart agreed, and they entered into a contract.However, because they were friends the agreement was oral.The terms were as follows:

1.The lease would be for a period of four years;

2.The monthly payment would be $1,200 a month (the exact amount of Kelly's monthly payment); and

3.During the four year period of the lease Stewart will have a right to purchase the home for $220,000 (this was the then current market rate of the property at the time of the agreement).

Stewart moved into the home and began making payments. Over the next two years he made several improvements to the property.This included a covered patio and a gazebo in the back yard at a total cost of $7,000.During this same period the house rose in value by approximately $50,000.Further, Stewart's financial situation had improved and he was now able to obtain a loan to purchase the property.As a result, he notified Kelly that he was exercising his right under their agreement to purchase the home for $220,000.

Kelly, wishing to capitalize on the increase in value, asserted that no such agreement had been entered into, and even if it had it was unenforceable under the statute of frauds -i.e., that such an agreement to be enforceable must be in writing. Stewart filed a lawsuit and a trial was held to decide the case.Stewart has presented sufficient evidence to establish the existence of the oral agreement and the terms of the oral agreement.

Is this oral agreement unenforceable pursuant to the doctrine of the Statute of Frauds?