Assume two (2) parties enter into an oral agreement that must generally be in writing in order to be enforceable. (the “statute of frauds” indicates that the following four (4) types of agreements must be in writing: 1) contracts whose terms prevent possible performance within one year; 2) promises made in consideration of marriage; 3) contracts for one party to pay the debt of another if the initial party fails to pay; and 4) contracts related to an interest in land. according to the uniform commercial code, contracts for the sale of goods totaling more than $500 must also be in writing.) from an ethical standpoint, even though the parties have entered into an oral agreement, is it permissible for one of the parties to deny liability based on the statute of frauds or uniform commercial code writing requirement? in your reasoned opinion, should a party honor an oral contract, even though the law technically requires the agreement to be in writing?