Mr. Ellig (plaintiff) was discussing with Alfred Molina (defendant) the possibility of buying a diamond ring for Mrs. Ellig (plaintiff). During the discussion, Molina stated that if the Elligs did not like the ring for any reason, they could return it within one year of purchase, and Molina would buy it back for 10 percent above the purchase price. In discussing the proposed purchase with Mrs. Ellig, Molina made the same buyback guarantee. The guarantee was never reduced to writing. The Elligs purchased the ring in June 2011 for over $600,000 but were not happy with it. The Elligs decided to return the ring and informed Molina of that decision within one year of the purchase date. In July 2012, Molina sent the Elligs a letter that confirmed the purchase and Molina’s guarantee. However, the letter stated that Molina needed to resell the diamond before he could repay the Elligs. This requirement was not part of the original oral agreement, and the Elligs did not agree to the requirement. The Elligs brought suit against Molina, alleging breach of contract. Molina claimed that the contract was barred by the statute of frauds.