What is a good Response to the underlined information below

.The Statute of Frauds can be defined as "a legal concept that requires certain types of contracts to be executed in writing. The statute covers contracts for the sale of land, agreements involving goods worth over $500, and contracts lasting one year or more" (Statute of Frauds, Chen). I agree with this concept because I feel like if there is not a binding contract, then it will be easy to get away with things. I sometimes feel as if verbal agreements are often not reliable because it can be more of a "he said she said" type of situation which can lead to either bias of one side or people are in favor of the person who just seems more believable in the situation. In the article "Statute of Frauds" by Content Team it states "written contracts provide a tangible record of the specifics of the agreement. Some contracts involve high-value transactions, which have a high likelihood of ending in litigation if made only verbally. The Statute of Frauds requires some types of agreements or transactions to be made in writing, with signatures of the parties on the writing. In the event such an agreement leads to litigation, the court has a firm understanding of each party's responsibility in fulfilling the terms of the contract." This basically means that due to both parties agreeing and signing the contract, it shows that both understand the terms and agreements and should be held accountable if expectations are not met.