Which of the following is NOT an exception to contracts that must be in writing according to the Statute of Frauds?

The reasoning behind identifying oral agreements between friends as not being an exception to the requirement for contracts to be in writing according to the Statute of Frauds centers on the fundamental purpose of this legal principle. The Statute of Frauds mandates that certain types of contracts be in writing to be enforceable, primarily to prevent fraudulent claims and misunderstandings that can arise from verbal agreements.

Specially manufactured goods, admissions in court, and performance of work under the contract are recognized as exceptions to this rule. For instance, when goods are specially manufactured for a buyer and are not suitable for sale to others, the contract may be enforceable even if it is not in writing, as it demonstrates the intent of both parties and the specific nature of the agreement. Similarly, if a party admits the existence of a contract in court, that admission may also bypass the writing requirement. Additionally, performance of work under a contract can sometimes validate an oral agreement if the actions of the parties indicate that they intended to be bound by the contract.

In contrast, oral agreements between friends typically do not carry the same weight or formalities that other contracts do, especially in a legal sense. The informal nature of such friendships means that these agreements generally do not meet the conditions set forth by