The statute of fraud was intended to avoid unjust claims by requiring that certain contracts be written in order to be enforceable.

Facts:Able had a home that was infested with termites.Bob knew that what Able had seen on his property was not termites at all, but simple head lice that do not eat or burrow in wood.Bob knew Able was selling cheap and wanted to get the house before someone told Able that he had no termites in his house.So Bob made an oral agreement with Able to purchase the house for $200,000 (the house's value would be $300,00 without the termites).Bob gave Able $50,000 as a down payment, and he was to take possession immediately, with three more monthly payments of $50,000 due to each of the successive months.Bob moved in and fumigated the lice, removing them from the house.One woman on the fumigating crew knew Able and mentioned to him that he had a lice infestation in his old house.Able sued to reclaim possession of his house under the statute of frauds.He also claimed that Bob knew there were no termites and had also committed fraud.Will Able win and why?