Discuss all of the following points in your post:What was the decision of the trial court in this case? Why did they rule that way? Why did the appeals court come to the opposite conclusion? What is

Discuss all of the following points in your post:

• What was the decision of the trial court in this case? Why did they rule that way?
• Why did the appeals court come to the opposite conclusion?
• What is the Statute of Frauds and what purpose does it serve?
• What is the "essential purpose" doctrine and why did the court find that it's application was "common sense" in this case?
• How strong is the argument for the common sense approach?