Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Indiana (Coke Indy) had an agreement with Babyback’s International, Inc. (BBI), under which Coke would pay BBI to arrange for coolers to display the companies’ products side by side in Indianapolis. BBI then began discussions with Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE) about a similar plan in Louisville. BBI performed pursuant to the discussion but no contract was signed. They continued discussions in Atlanta about nationwide expansion, which would have lasted more than a year. BBI alleged that a memorandum faxed to it by CCE summarized the oral agreement. The day after BBI made the claim, it was denied by CCE. BBI sued to enforce the contract, arguing that its past performance and the memo made CCE’s statute of frauds defense invalid. Is this correct? Explain.