Abrams (plaintiff) orally agreed to provide certain consulting services for Unity Mutual Life Insurance Company (defendant). The parties wrote draft agreements and attempted, but ultimately failed, to finalize a written agreement. Nevertheless, Abrams performed the work for Unity pursuant to an oral agreement. The oral agreement included certain commissions to be paid to Abrams related to certain Unity sales. Several years later, Unity parted ways with Abrams. Abrams sued Unity for unjust enrichment, among other claims, seeking payment of the commissions that were orally agreed to. To support his unjust-enrichment claim, Abrams used the parties’ oral agreement as a basis for valuing his services. The district court granted Unity summary judgment based on the statute of frauds. Abrams appealed the judgment on his unjust-enrichment claim.