Scarlett Wilson (defendant) owned approximately 37 acres of land. Larry Brantley (plaintiff) called Wilson and asked if the property was for sale. Wilson said she would sell for $10,000 per acre. Wilson and Brantley exchanged a series of e-mails in which they agreed to a purchase price of $370,000, in cash at the time of closing, with closing costs to be split 50/50, but did not set a closing date. Brantley wrote that he would not have trouble obtaining financing and requested a survey of the property. The e-mails did not discuss earnest money, retention of mineral interests, or a deadline for financing. Brantley’s attorney prepared a real estate contract, which Brantley signed and forwarded to Wilson. Instead of signing, Wilson e-mailed Brantley stating that she had “decided not to sell . . . at this time for $10,000 per acre,” because a neighbor had told her that nearby properties had sold for much higher prices. Brantley brought suit seeking specific performance, asserting that the e-mails formed a valid contract. Wilson moved for summary judgment, arguing that the parties did not intend the e-mails to form a contract. Moreover, Wilson argued that any agreement reached by the e-mails was too vague to be enforceable and would violate the statute of frauds.